Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Wakeford School, Havant

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I beg leave to present a petition to the House on behalf of over 1,100 pupils of Wakeford School, Leigh Park, in the county of Hampshire.
The petition states
That Hampshire County Council proposes to reorganise the secondary schools of the excepted district of Havant and Waterloo in such a way that Wakefield School ceases to be an all-through, 11–18 bilateral school, and becomes an 11–16 comprehensive school, feeding Sixth Form colleges at 16-plus, which will damage our educational prospects and also the character of the area.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will act so as to ensure that Wakeford School will remain an 11–18 all-through school, thereby serving the best interest of its pupils, and the needs of the community.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Factory Farming

Mr. Molloy: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the National Society for the Abolition of Factory Farming which was formed to campaign against the crude vulgarities, the infliction of unnecessary pain, and the disgraceful conditions suffered by animals subjected to factory farming.
The transport of animals within countries of the EEC and the many issues involved in their transport and slaughter are giving rise to grave concern. Therefore,
The Humble Petition of the National Society for the Abolition of Factory Farming, and others Sheweth:
That all the barbarous innovations in "factory farming" that have taken place in this country in the past two years have originated in Europe; the Unicar and Protekta Sow Far-

rowing Crate in Sweden, and caged piglets (the Early Weaner System) in Belgium.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that as a result of joining the European Economic Community on 1st January 1973, no further exploitation of our farm animals will be allowed to take place.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Political Union

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the subject of EEC political union is to be discussed at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): No, Sir. I am not aware of any proposal that this subject should be discussed at the next meeting of the Council.

Mr. Deakins: When the Secretary of State has this subject on the agenda will he make it clear to the Council of Ministers that his commitment binds only the Conservative Government? Will he remind the Council of Ministers that Parliament has not been consulted on this matter? Furthermore, will he emphasise to the appropriate meeting of the Council of Ministers that the British people have not been consulted, and are most unlikely to agree?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir, I should not go so far as that. No Government can bind their successors. That is quite clear. There is no particular pattern for political union at this moment. It cannot be seen in advance. There has to be an evolutionary process.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the closer the political consultations and action of the nine countries of the Community the better, not only for Western Europe but for the western world, in all the most important international matters of today?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, I think that consultation is very important. My


experience of the meetings so far is that the Foreign Ministers try to reach the maximum consensus on any particular matter of policy.

Mr. Marten: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the debate on the Common Market a Foreign Office Minister said that it is not the aim of the Government to work towards federalism? Will he assure the House that that view remains, and that we are still opposed to federalism?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is referring to me. I believe, and have always said, that it is useless to attach labels like "federalism", "federal" or "confederal". Europe will have its own pattern, which it will work out for itself.

Portugal

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what celebrations and exchange visits are planned for the 600th anniversary of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance; and who will be the British guests of the Government on these occasions.

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pay an official visit to Portugal.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): There are two official visits planned to mark the 600th anniversary of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance The Duke of Edinburgh will visit Portugal from 5th to 8th June 1973 and the President of the Council of Ministers of Portugal, Professor Caetano, will visit Great Britain from 16th to 19th July. Other events planned include a good will visit to Lisbon by ships of the Royal Navy, and cultural events in London and in Lisbon.

Miss Lestor: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that going ahead with these celebrations is a calculated insult to those people who are still fighting for basic human rights in those areas which are still under Portuguese influence—rights are happily taken for granted in this country? Will he reconsider the whole question?

Mr. Royle: Portugal's internal policies are not a matter on which it would be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government or myself to comment, nor one over which Her Majesty's Government have any control. Portugal is our ally in NATO and it is our policy in that context to develop businesslike and friendly relations with the Portuguese Government.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we were to follow the logic of the hon. Lady's suggestion we would break off diplomatic relations with every country in Africa?

Mr. Royle: There is a good deal of truth in what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Members in this House and people in the country regard Portugal's war of colonial aggression in Africa as obnoxious, and see the 600 years' celebration as an occasion for lament rather than rejoicing? If an official visit has to be paid to Portugal, will the hon. Gentleman go himself rather than get the Duke of Edinburgh to do his dirty work for him?

Mr. Royle: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Certainly, if I were invited to go to Portugal I should be happy to do so. In fact, the Duke of Edinburgh wishes to go, and he has the full support of Her Majesty's Government for his visit to that country.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that sensible people will be glad at both the content of his reply and the reasons which he has adduced in support thereof? Does he further agree that if we were to follow the precepts of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) we would be left with very few friends in the world, except perhaps those whose friendship we might be better without?

Mr. Royle: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. I think the House accepts that for some time African matters have been a source of open and acknowledged disagreement between Britain and Portugal, but that does not prevent us from wishing to maintain friendly relations with Portugal.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Opposition Members will greet with some relief the phrase that he has just used, namely, that British and Portuguese views on what policies should be pursued in colonial Africa are at variance? Will the hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that any official visit which is paid on this occasion will not be regarded as a condonation of Portuguese policy in Africa?

Mr. Royle: I note the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I think he is aware that Her Majesty's Government endorse the principle of self-determination by all colonial peoples. We believe that its implementation, including timing and method, is a matter for the administering Power.

Chile

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to make an official visit to Chile.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

Mr. Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Chile, just having gone through an election, is in urgent need of a period of stability in the course of which the democratic process can thrive still further in that still democratic country of Latin America? Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the British Government will offer substantial, increased aid to Chile in order to assist her during this precarious period and to offset the sustained political and economic blackmail by the United States Government, as evidenced at the recent inquiry in that country?

Mr. Kershaw: We are in close touch with the Chilean Government, both politically and commercially. As the hon. Gentleman said, we share with her a long democratic tradition, and we look forward to a visit soon by Chilean parliamentarians. Our contacts over commercial indebtedness are close and will continue.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Should a Foreign Office Minister find himself reciprocating the visit of the Chilean parliamentarians, will he be certain to take a delegation

comprising right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite so that they may witness at first hand some of the more devastating consequences of the application of the extreme measures of Socialism which have taken place in that country?

Mr. Kershaw: The autumn session of the IPU will take place at Santiago in Chile, and perhaps hon. Members will be able to see for themselves.

Bangladesh

Mr. Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now pay an official visit to Bangladesh.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Bangladesh.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): My right hon. Friend paid an official visit to Bangladesh in June last year. There are at present no further plans to visit the sub-continent.

Mr. Fowler: I accept that, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most urgent questions that must be tackled in Bangladesh is that of the Biharis, thousands of whom are living in appalling conditions in what amount to refugee camps? Does not he agree that this is another question upon which Pakistan and Bangladesh should meet if a solution is to be found, and should not British policy be aimed towards that end?

Lord Balniel: The condition of the Biharis is a matter of great importance, and I can inform the House that the most recent report that we have received from the High Commissioner in Dacca, prepared after consultation with International Red Cross officials, indicates that the Bangladesh Red Cross is continuing the relief operations conscientiously and that the security and living conditions of the Biharis, although poor, can be said to be on a par with those of the Bangalees.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to make clear to the Bangladesh authorities and to the Indian Government that the friends, in this country, of their countries are seriously


concerned not only about relieving the conditions of the Biharis but also about the continued retention of more than 90,000 prisoners-of-war 15–16 months after the ceasefire? Will the right hon. Gentleman make every effort to get these prisoners-of-war returned to Pakistan, where they wish to go and should be allowed to go immediately?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important matter. The important thing is to achieve the return of the prisoners-of-war. At Simla, India and Pakistan agreed to discuss further the question of the repatriation of prisoners-of-war and also of civilian internees. We welcome that decision, and steps have been taken to implement the Simla agreement. We believe that the best hope for success lies in negotiations between the countries immediately concerned.

Mr. Kilfedder: As, in terms of multinational aid to Bangladesh, Britain's contribution was second only to that of the United Nations Agencies, and bearing in mind that the recent harvest has been the lowest for more than a decade and therefore that Bangladesh will require further aid from foreign countries and from this country, will my right hon. Friend try to convince Sheikh Mujib that talks between Bangladesh and Pakistan should go ahead, so that they can endeavour to settle their outstanding views, without the question of recognition, if need be?
Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to counsel caution against war trials in Bangladesh, particularly the trial of former members of the Awami League who stayed on in East Pakistan who were members of the National Assembly? I have been making inquiries about some of them. Some have disappeared, and one, at least, is awaiting trial.

Lord Balniel: It is true that the Government have contributed substantially to aid relief. We made a £12 million grant towards aid in Bangladesh and we shall be sending a delegation to the forthcoming meeting of donor countries which is to be held in Dacca in a week or a fortnight's time. The position is that President Bhutto and Mrs. Gandhi have made it plain that they do not want out-

side mediation and intend to settle their differences between themselves. I am sure that that is right although Her Majesty's Government have made it plain that should they be able to assist in any way they would be willing to do so.

Mr. Maclennan: Do the Government feel that they are able to make representations to Bangladesh about the predicament of the collaborators who are still being tried in that country? Do the Government accept the desirability of bringing to an end the continuing aftermath of the war in an effort to stabilise the situation? This would make a healthy contribution to the future of the sub-continent.

Lord Balniel: I can only reiterate that we believe that the best way of reaching a solution to this very serious and intractable problem is that the three countries concerned, which have expressed the wish that there should not be outside mediation, should be allowed to proceed in their own way towards settling their differences. I am sure that, for the moment, this is the best road towards progress.

Mr. Shore: I welcome what the Minister has said, which I am sure is the most sensible approach. However, in offering our good offices to the three countries in the Asian sub-continent will he ensure that in any advice or assistance which we offer them in an effort to solve these very difficult matters we bring together all the problems affecting people who are greatly at risk as a result of the recent war there? In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman confine his attention not merely to the matter of prisoners of war, which is very urgent, but also to the question of the Bihari minority, including those Biharis who wish to return and have been asked to return to Pakistan, as well as the enormous Bengali community in Pakistan, which is being kept there mostly against its will?

Lord Balniel: Yes, Sir. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are in consultation with the leaders of the Governments concerned, and that these are matters which we discuss with them. But, of course, our consultations with them are confidential.

India and Pakistan

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of India and Pakistan.

Lord Balniel: Her Majesty's Government are in frequent and regular contact with the Governments of both India and Pakistan on matters of mutual interest and we have, through our representatives in Delhi and Islamabad, been in touch recently with senior members of both Governments.

Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the detention of the prisoners-of-war for 16 months could, if it continues for much longer, poison relations between these two friendly countries for generations to come? Since 16 months have elapsed with no apparent move, will he at least take a public initiative, along with other great nations, to try to bring these two countries together?

Lord Balniel: I can only repeat what I have said before, that we regard as one of the most important features of a settlement the return of the prisoners-of-war to their countries of origin. In so far as we can assist in this and in other matters relating to a settlement, we are very willing to do so, if asked by the countries concerned.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that this problem is causing a great deal of worry and heart-searching to communities within this country? Hon. Members receive representations to this effect from time to time. Is it not a fact that this issue of prisoners-of-war depends to a large degree on the recognition by Pakistan of Bangladesh? Will he use his best endeavours to get talks going along these lines?

Lord Balniel: The concern is felt not only in this country but throughout the world. The hon. Member and the House will know that Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has just visited India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. He has informed us that he had useful talks in all three capitals and was impressed by the serious intent of all the parties to reach a settlement, although he was well aware that this

could not be achieved overnight. We are in close touch with Dr. Waldheim and we are ready to help him and the countries concerned if it is felt that we have a useful rôle to play.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I remind my hon. Friend that when he speaks of the "countries of origin", he is being incorrect, as the only prisoners-of-war remaining incarcerated are the Pakistanis captured on the eastern front, who capitulated on 16th December 1971 to Lt-General Jangjit Singh Aurora, and that since the instrument of surrender contains no Bangladesh signatures this must indicate that Mr. Hornsby is right to say in The Times today that the joint command is a fiction and that the pre-consent of Bangladesh should not be called for before repatriation of the prisoners-of-war?

Lord Balniel: I do not think that I am incorrect. Many factors are involved in this dispute, not just the prisoners-of-war. There are the civilians in two of the countries concerned, whose problems we must bear in mind.

France

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now seek to arrange an official meeting with the French Foreign Minister.

Mr. Dixon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent discussions with the French Foreign Minister on political co-operation in Western European countries.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Foreign Minister of France is always welcome here, but we have no firm plans at present for a meeting.

Mr. Allaun: But is it good enough for the Government merely to say, as they do, that the French are well aware of our opposition to their nuclear test explosions in the Pacific? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not put his beliefs into practice by making official representations to the French, as other Governments have done?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Because, time and again, I have made it clear to the French Government what our view is.


[HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] Our view is that the test ban treaty should be adhered to. It is quite a simple view, which I have made clear to the French.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the French, and publicly, that we are not in favour of any joint Franco-British nuclear force and would remain loyal to our NATO allies?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We will certainly remain loyal to our NATO allies. Any other question about a Franco-British nuclear force is a matter for the future, if at all.

Dame Joan Vickers: At the recent WEU meeting, I asked M. Debré, the French Minister of Defence, whether he would have further consultations with the new Governments of Australia and New Zealand, and he definitely turned me down. Can my right hon. Friend reopen those negotiations?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are in touch with the new Governments of Australia and New Zealand, but I do not think that this affects our attitude to the question that I was asked, which was whether we could make plain our view on the nuclear testing. My answer is that we have done so many times.

Dr. David Owen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the key to this matter is that France should have facilities for underground nuclear testing? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the French have access at least to the technology? Then they would be able to sign the partial test ban treaty and cease this atmospheric pollution.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the French were to make any approaches to us, we would give consideration to this matter, or any other. They have not done so so far.

Commonwealth Links

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will put forward proposals designed to strengthen Great Britain's links with other Commonwealth countries.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The existing machinery for Commonwealth cooperation is very adequate for the purpose and we play our full part in it. Britain's

bilateral links with individual Commonwealth countries are of course close.

Mr. Dormand: That was a complacent and generalised reply, which is typical of everything that the Government say about the Commonwealth. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who believe that the Commonwealth could have a vital rôle to play in the world's future think that it is on its last legs? Is he further aware that the present position has been brought about largely, although not entirely, by this Government's obsession with entry to the EEC and also because of their serious neglect of the Commonwealth since they came to office? Will he take every possible step—political, economic, educational—to try to restore the bonds which existed only a few years ago before it is too late?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Certainly we will take any steps. I hoped that I was going to hear from the hon. Gentleman some positive proposals for strengthening Britain's communications with other Commonwealth countries. He will recall that we have the Commonwealth Secretariat, and we have our bilateral talks, which work very well. The machinery is there. Whether we can make more of the machinery is a matter of opinion. I am always ready to take advice on that.

Mr. Evelyn King: To put this matter in proportion, are there not many Commonwealth countries of which we are extremely proud? Are there not others—legalised rape in Zanzibar, which forms part of Tanzania, and the activities of President Amin are much in the news—of which, to make no bones about it, we have reason to be ashamed? Is not our right course to be sensibly discriminating?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This question was essentially about contacts with, and machinery for contacts with, the Commonwealth. They may be able to be improved, but I think that if they are properly used they are adequate.

Gibraltar

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any arrangement for further meetings with the Spanish Foreign Minister over the future of Gibraltar.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Lopez Bravo, will visit London in early May. During his visit he and I will cover a broad range of matters of mutual concern and continue our discussions on the subject of Gibraltar, about which we have agreed to work together.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that we welcome the new aid agreement signed with Gibraltar on 6th March but hope that alongside it will go a new resolve to ensure that the people of Gibraltar are allowed to decide their destiny and will not be pressurised to join the Fascist régime in Spain.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. The hon. Gentleman need have no fear on that point, nor need anyone in the House. Written into the preamble of our Act of Parliament is the fact that the people of Gibraltar shall decide their own future..

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Without endorsing the loose use of the word "Fascist" by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not the case that Spain wishes to take her place with us in a United Europe? Is it not, therefore, quite inappropriate that Spain should have adopted a hostile attitude towards some of our fellow subjects in Gibraltar?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. I deplore the fact that Spain's attitude towards Gibraltar is hostile. In the Spaniards' own interests they would make much more progress if they wooed the Gibraltarians.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: In view of some of the other recent somersaults in Government policy, do not the people of Gibraltar need some reassurance from time to time? What plans has the Foreign Secretary for visits by himself or other Ministers to Gibraltar to reassure the people there?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have recently seen the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and other Ministers. I have been in Gibraltar quite recently. I see no need for reassurance whatever. They are quite content with the statement in the Act of Parliament that they should decide their future.

Sudan (British Assets)

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report progress on the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Sudan Government regarding the valuation of the assets of British companies nationalised in 1970.

Mr. Kershaw: Negotiations have been taking place between the companies and the Sudan Government. Her Majesty's Government are not directly involved but we have consistently made it clear to the Sudan Government that we attach great importance to a settlement. I myself raised this during my recent visit to the Sudan. Talks held recently have resulted in a substantial measure of agreement on the valuation of assets. We expect further negotiations to be held shortly on the means of paying compensation.

Mr. Luce: I am glad to hear of this progress. I warmly welcome the visit of President Nimeri, but will my hon. Friend impress upon him the need for firm agreement not only on the valuation of these assets but also on the need for prompt payment of compensation? Does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner this agreement is reached the sooner can British industry be encouraged to respond to the need for and potential of renewed private investment in the Sudan?

Mr. Kershaw: I agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, we very much welcome the visit which President Nimeri is about to pay. We recognise that the Sudan Government are genuinely anxious to resolve this problem in a way which is satisfactory to all parties. Their difficulty is a shortage of foreign exchange.

Passports

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for individual passports within a family to be issued collectively at the cost of a joint passport.

Mr. Kershaw: No, Sir. The family passport as at present issued is a facility which is well used and appreciated. To do what my hon. Friend suggests would be tantamount to granting a passport


free to all married women and every child under 16.

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate that reply, but does not my hon. Friend agree that this suggestion would effectively remove discrimination against a wife or a widow not being able to use a joint passport unilaterally—an iniquity perpetrated by international convention? Secondly, would not it help to minimise the illegal immigration of alleged wives and children into this country with a British male passport-holder returning to the United Kingdom on a joint passport?

Mr. Kershaw: On the first point, I find a little difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend that it is discrimination that married women should not have what is something extra, which no other person in this country has. It is clear that it would be irresponsible of the Government to act unilaterally in this matter. We have made inquiries and have been assured by several countries that they will not accept a passport which is not in the name of the holder. Whether an international conference is possible in the future is a matter that I am willing to discuss but we shall have to see.

Mr. William Hamilton: When this question was last raised the Minister who replied was rather flippant in his answer. Will the Under-Secretary undertake to exercise some initiative on behalf of the Government to call a new international conference to discuss this matter, because there is a feeling among women particularly that there is discrimination against them in this respect?

Mr. Kershaw: I am aware of the feelings which have obviously set off the Questions which have been raised in the House. As for an international conference, I am willing to investigate that matter. I cannot be very optimistic because very few countries are concerned with this matter as they do not issue family passports; so it is difficult to get them to come along. But we shall have a go.

Mr. Deedes: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the countries at present resisting the change which we should like to make are not confronted with the same problems as those with which we are, particularly in respect of the second part of the question of my hon. Friend the

Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman)?

Mr. Kershaw: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says in regard to immigration control. This is an important matter, which we are looking into.

Mr. George Cunningham: Would it not be sensible to abolish the joint family passport altogether and reduce the cost of the individual passport to something much more reasonable than the present charge? How much profit does the Foreign Office make out of issuing passports at present?

Mr. Kershaw: There is something in what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his supplementary question. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a comment about the second part. Our total receipts from the issue of passports are about £8 million. That must go in with all the consular expenses we have, and in view of that we are justified. The House agreed a short time ago to raise the charge to £5.

Icelandic Fisheries

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the present dispute with Iceland over the fishing limits.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Reykjavik, accompanied by two senior officials from Whitehall, will be having discussions with the Icelandic Government in Reykjavik tomorrow. These will not be negotiations but are designed to pave the way for ministerial talks, which I hope will be renewed very soon. I would also hope and expect that there will be no further Icelandic harassment of our trawlers while these talks go on.

Mr. McNamara: We are very pleased to hear the news that preparations for talks about talks are taking place. But is it not of the utmost importance that the negotiations at ministerial level start as soon as possible and that they should not be conducted under the threat of harassment of our fishing fleet by the Icelandic Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the rôle played by the EEC in this matter in refusing, as I understand it, to ratify the free trade treaty with Iceland until next July, until


the situation of Iceland and Britain on fishing limits has been reviewed?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. This action has been taken by the European Community, so everything is suspended until it is seen how these talks go—until next year. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the talks will not take too long and that the negotiations can be quickly transferred to a ministerial level.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is the best news that the fishing ports have had since 1st September 1972? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that our ambassador in Reykjavik has met the Icelandic Foreign Minister, Mr. Agustsson, and that it is more than likely that we shall have the beginnings of an interim agreement which will carry us on, perhaps, into the Santiago talks on the much wider questions of the law of the sea, the sea bed and the whole range of items to be discussed there? Is this not so, and is it not a much better climate altogether?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope so. If one may use an appropriate simile, I never like counting my fish until they are on the bank. We have not got this one landed yet, but things look a little better for the time being.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that both sides of the House will be very glad that negotiations are to be resumed, and echo what he has said about the general hope that they should not proceed in an atmosphere of anything like harassment or retaliation on either side?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Middle East

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the consideration by the Council of Ministers of the EEC of the Arab-Israel conflict in the Middle East.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: At the meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Nine in Brussels on 16th March my colleagues and I exchanged views on the situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Marten: Now that the Common Market, as the saying goes, can speak with one voice in foreign affairs, what is that one voice about the Middle East? If the voices are not all the same, what are the differences?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Everyone is anxious to find a solution for the Middle East. If Europe has a contribution to make—I say "if", because this is not certain—we should concentrate on trying to be helpful. Therefore, we discussed the Middle East with the desire to be helpful if, on some future occasion, our intervention was requested.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many people would prefer the Council of Ministers and the EEC not to involve themselves in this matter at all? However, while this is, on the one hand, a matter for the parties directly involved and, on the other, a matter for the United Nations, it is not a matter for the small, irrelevant group dominated by the spiteful and nasty French Government.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can easily recognise one person who thinks that we in the Community should not try to be helpful. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's attitude. I should have thought that anyone who had the interests of the Middle East at heart would wish to be helpful, and it is possible that the European Economic Community can be so.

Dame Joan Vickers: When does the EEC intend to set up a Foreign Affairs secretariat?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That has not yet been brought up again.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Does not the Foreign Secretary think that it would be really helpful if the countries in the EEC agreed to supply arms to neither side? The most specific influence other countries can have on the Middle East is for them to call a boycott of arms to either side, and the EEC might well provide a start in this direction.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that restraint is exercised by most European countries in relation to arms sales to the Middle East. It is certainly exercised by Britain. Various suggestions have been made—for example, that European countries might guarantee any settlement


that is made. We in the Community should give serious consideration to that. It cannot do any harm. It may do some good.

Commonwealth Sugar Agreement

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the discussions which have taken place with Commonwealth sugar-producing countries in regard to development aid following the termination of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in 1974.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies): In view of the undertakings on sugar incorporated in the Treaty of Accession, the termination of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement does not itself create a need for discussions on development aid.

Mr. Milne: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that it is precisely because of these negotiations that discussions on development aid need to take place; because, as some of us stated at the time, the Commonwealth countries, particularly the sugar-producing areas, were sold down the river by the agreement that was then concluded? A further examination of the needs of those countries following the completion of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in 1974 is urgently required.

Mr. Davies: I do not share the apprehensions to which the hon. Gentleman gives voice. The provisions made under Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession were exceedingly explicit, and I think that the discussions which took place at Lancaster House and which gave rise to the assurances which were given to the sugar-producing Commonwealth countries were widely accepted as being very relevant to their future situation.

Sir Robin Turton: Is my right hon. Friend taking steps to translate the bankable assurances which were given at the time of the negotiations into explicit undertakings by the beet sugar growers of Europe that they will not take over the main sugar market of the developing countries?

Mr. Davies: As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, the intention is that these matters should be the subject of

negotiations starting this year, and those negotiations will take place in the context of the very firm assurances which have been given both here and by the Community. I have little fear that those negotiations will give rise to an unsatisfactory outcome. However, they will take place as scheduled.

Mr. Shore: Though the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement talks are to take place next year, for the renewal beyond 1974, surely the Chancellor of the Duchy will agree that the most relevant and immediate decision is within the Community, on the size of the beet sugar acreage for which support prices will be given in the coming year. The House and all sugar-growing countries would like to know that the British Government and the Council of Ministers will ensure that there is no increase, and if possible a decrease if the examinations of the supply position justify it, in beet sugar acreage in Europe.

Mr. Davies: I believe that the critical question is that there should be a clear understanding, both in the Community and here, that it is the full intention to honour the undertakings given at the Lancaster House discussions. That is the full understanding both here and in the Community

Nepal

Mr. Boscawen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the RAF airdrop of food supplies in Nepal.

Mr. Anthony Royle: The Royal Air Force airdrop of foodgrains in Nepal began on 3rd March, and by 20th March 1,000 metric tons had been dropped. We are hoping to complete the total airlift of 1,850 tons by the first week of April.
The operation has gone very well indeed. I am glad to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Royal Air Force and Army personnel involved for their hard work and efficiency and to express appreciation for the effective support arrangements made by the Nepalese authorities. I am confident that this British effort will greatly strengthen the bonds of friendship between Nepal and the United Kingdom.
We are also most grateful to the Indian authorities for their co-operation over fuel supplies and prompt clearance for the necessary overflights of Indian airspace.

Mr. Boscawen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the part he has played in bringing about this airlift. I also congratulate the personnel involved. Is not this a great assurance to our friends all over the world that where necessary, in a humanitarian cause, we not only can take the initiative but have the means of engaging in such a difficult and hazardous operation? Does not this further demonstrate the need for a high level of intelligent defence expenditure?

Mr. Royle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is indeed a very satisfactory outcome. We have been able to do this in other parts of the world. Only recently we conducted a similar operation in the Sudan.

South Africa

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his representatives in South Africa have yet completed their survey of how British-owned firms are participating in apartheid practices; and whether he will make a statement.

Lord Balniel: Her Majesty's Ambassador and his staff in South Africa are not carrying out any survey of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. But they naturally keep themselves as closely informed as possible on this subject.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the British firms which have been expressing surprise and ignorance about the behaviour of their subsidiaries in South Africa have known all along what was going on in terms of wages? That includes Jim Slater, to whom I wrote as long ago as last September.
Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct our ambassador in South Africa to draw up a full report showing exactly what British firms are doing in participating in apartheid practices? Will he also instruct our representatives to tell British firms that they do not have to follow local custom in South Africa and that they should strive to pay black workers

exactly the same wages, give them exactly the same promotion opportunities and allow them exactly the same levels of trade union organisation as they grant in this country? If British firms cannot do that, they should get out.

Lord Balniel: I cannot comment on the specific charge the hon. Gentleman makes. I most certainly welcome the reaction of British firms which have announced their intention of looking into the practices and enterprises in South Africa for which they have responsibility.
Last August the Government gave positive advice, through a pamphlet issued by the Department of Trade and Industry to firms considering investing in South Africa, emphasising the scope for improving wages and conditions of service of non-white employees. It is certainly in the interests of British companies in South Africa to establish a good name as employers and to keep abreast with the best current practices of pay and conditions of service for their employees.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Although South Africa, very regrettably, has only herself to blame for the long-standing and often hysterical preoccupation of the Left over conditions in that country, will Her Majesty's Government resist most strenuously the temptation to assume some sort of broad moral responsibility for economic and social conditions in a part of the world for which we ceased to have responsibility 63 years ago?

Lord Balniel: Investment by British countries in South Africa is most important in bringing employment to non-white employees in South Africa. The whole House will agree that this is very important. I do not believe that a policy of boycott or ostracism towards South Africa would be of any help to the non-white population.

Mr. Richard: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to repudiate the squalid remarks made by his hon. Friend? If he does not, is it not time that he realised that a large part of this country, not necessarily confined to one particular view or one political party, was profoundly shocked at the recent disclosures of what British firms have been doing to their employees in Southern Africa? What have the right hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Office done to establish the facts? Have they, for example,


asked the firms concerned to account directly to them for the allegations which have been made? Have they had in representatives of the firms to discover exactly what the position is?
It is time we knew what the Government intend to do about this because the country as a whole, and certainly my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will not be keen on letting this matter rest where it is. We want something done about it.

Lord Balniel: Maybe that is so, but it does not alter the facts. I am astonished by the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. What is notable is that the Labour Government did nothing whatsoever when they were in office, whereas in August last year we issued advice in a pamphlet through the Department of Trade and Industry which emphasised the importance of improving pay and conditions of service.
As for the inquiry, I have nothing to add to the letter sent by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), which is being placed in the Library. There is a great deal of information about conditions in South Africa, and this has been made public as a result of social and economic surveys conducted by reputable independent bodies. I believe that is the best way of getting the information publicly known.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the duty of persons corporate or individual in South Africa is to obey the law of that country? Will the Government seek to avoid giving the impression of interfering in any way in the internal affairs of South Africa or setting up standards of conduct for a country 6,000 miles away of which, on the whole, we know very little.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: It is not the law.

Lord Balniel: We are not responsible for the law in South Africa, and in that sense I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Equally, however, there is scope for improving pay and conditions of non-white employees with British companies, and I hope those companies will look very carefully at the possibilities of doing so.

Mr. Richard: The right hon. Gentleman is evading my point. Specific allega-

tions have been made publicly and these allegations should be investigated publicly. It should be done, if possible, by an inquiry through the machinery of this House. Why on earth do the Government not accept that position?

Lord Balniel: Because I have already explained that a mass of information has been made available. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will take the opportunity of studying it he will be able to inform himself on the subject.

Rhodesia

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will deduct from aid funds for Zambia and Tanzania amounts sufficient to compensate victims in Rhodesia of terrorist operations mounted or sustained from those countries.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Have not Rhodesians, black and white, who are in our law British subjects been murdered by terrorists trained in Tanzania and staged through Zambia? What must be the feeling of the bereaved when these two countries are offered unqualified aid by the United Kingdom?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The victims and their relations will understand that the United Kingdom aid programme to any country is geared to the development of that country and is designed to increase stability. Therefore, this issue must be separate from any question of compensation to victims of terrorism.

Mr. Molloy: Is not the truth that this current phase in Rhodesian development and its effect on neighbouring countries arises because of the activities of a number of treacherous and disloyal people? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the question from the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is almost equivalent to seeking reparation for former Fascist countries because of the activities of British forces in the last war?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That point is pretty far-fetched. However, I am quite clear in my mind that we must not mix up development aid with compensation for victims of terrorism.

Mrs. Hart: Will the Foreign Secretary be in a position fairly soon to tell us what extra aid is proposed by the British Government for Zambia as a direct result of the effects of the conflict with Rhodesia, particularly as the Canadian Government have just announced £3 million of aid to help specifically for this reason in the light of the United Nations recommendation?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Canadian Government have announced an extra £3 million aid, but their existing aid programme is small. My noble Friend in another place has announced an extra £1 million interest-free loan for Zambia for road transport equipment and this is in addition to the aid programme now running at £7 million a year, the bulk of it on technical assistance. We are also helping with financial arrangements for the Kariba North power station, in the form of £14,650,000 over 18 years, and we are paying pensions for British overseas civil servants for which the Zambian Government were previously responsible. The whole thing adds up to a very large aid programme.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not a matter of history that terrorist operations against Rhodesia from north of the Zambesi began before UDI?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There always has been a certain amount of terrorism on that frontier, but lately it has been stepped up.

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Smith régime in Rhodesia concerning the further harassment and arrests of members of the African National Council who have opposed the collection of signatures for a document purporting to convey African reappraisal of the Pearce proposals.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Rhodesians have indicated that the detentions of African National Council leaders were made for security reasons and that the cases will be considered by the Judicial Review Tribunal. As I indicated to the House on 28th February, I have taken the matter up with the Rhodesian authorities and have urged that they

should be brought to trial if there is evidence against them.

Mr. Whitehead: Although the equally deplorable trial of Mr. Niesewand has attracted more publicity, the arrest of Mr. Chadzingwa and Mr. Ngcebetsha was equally deplorable and was, I believe, because they had been advising Africans not to sign the bogus document that is being circulated as a counter-balance to the Pearce Report by the Rhodesian Government. If that document ever comes to London will the Foreign Secretary undertake to treat it with the contempt it deserves, and will he make further strong protests to the Rhodesian Government about the detention of these two men in particular, because they are in very poor health?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have made representations about the two mn. I do not know how to treat a document which I have not seen until I see it.

Mr. Haselhurst: Should it not be made clear to Mr. Smith that for this House to be satisfied that the test of acceptability has been fulfilled he will have to do rather more than collect signatures; that he must show that there is some accord between his Government and the political organs of African opinion?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It had been our hope that Mr. Smith would get in touch with and talk with the various representatives of African opinion in Rhodesia, and also that the process would move the other way and that Bishop Muzorewa and his supporters would get in touch with Mr. Smith so that consultations could take place.

Mr. Richard: Will the Foreign Secretary re-emphasise that the test of acceptability is for this House. It is for us and not Mr. Smith to be satisfied that the proposals are acceptable to the Rhodesians as a whole.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is certainly not for Mr. Smith to be satisfied; it is for the British Government, because it is we who have to bring proposals to this House.

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about developments in Rhodesia.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there have been any further contacts between Her Majesty's Government and the Smith régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave hon. Members on 28th February.— [Vol. 851, c. 1482–3.]

Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the pressure which is being exercised within Rhodesia on the African National Congress makes it more difficult to judge the attitude of that organisation to any possible proposals for settlement and to determine whether it is a free attitude? Does he further agree that there is a serious risk that if the ANC is subjected to these pressures it will cease to operate in a free atmosphere and will cease to command the respect of the outside world as the voice of the Rhodesian people? Will he therefore make representations to the Smith régime to the effect that it should take its hands off the ANC?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have said that I have made representations on behalf of the members of the ANC. I have asked Mr. Smith, if there is evidence against them, to bring them to trial. In general I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend feel that the European citizens of Rhodesia fully appreciate what this House will require before a settlement can take place? Is not one of the greatest obstacles to a settlement the present leader of the régime in Salisbury?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mr. Smith does lead the régime and exercise the authority. Any settlement that is made has to be made with Mr. Smith, among others. I must emphasise that the important thing now is that the initiative should come from Rhodesia, and all parties in Rhodesia.

Mr. Molloy: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that sanction-

breaking, the use of the British flag by some ships engaged in sanction-breaking, the case of Mr. Peter Niesewand and the situation with Zambia call for serious examination? Does he not agree that the Government must keep an extraordinarily close eye on all these things and take whatever action is necessary, in whatever appropriate institution?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. I noticed, looking at the figures on sanctions, that last year Rhodesia exported 240 million dollars' worth of goods to countries other than South Africa and imported 210 million dollars' worth of goods from countries other than South Africa. We have made 18 prosecutions, while practically no other country has prosecuted. Our sanctions story is at least good. This is what is happening.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my right hon. Friend continue patiently trying to explain to hon. Members on both sides of the House that Africa is not Hampstead?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that hon. Members have taken the point.

Bahamas

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the talks relating to constitutional changes for the Bahamas; and if he will make a statement.

Lord Balniel: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend and I told the House on 21st December and 29th January.—[Vol. 848, c. 468–70; Vol. 849, c. 280.]

Mr. Mitchell: What representations has the Minister had from the people living on the island of Abaco, and what reply has he sent?

Lord Balniel: I received representations from certain people from the island of Abaco before the independence conference. I was not able to accede to them. Abaco is an island in the Bahamas with a population of 6,000 out of a total population of 170,000, and it has been administered for the last 200 years as an integral part of the Bahamas. There was a general election which demonstrated a substantial majority in


favour of independence and the independence conference was successfully concluded on that basis.

AGRICULTURE (PRICE REVIEW)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Annual Farm Review.
The review shows that the general condition of the industry is good. Aggregate income, productivity, and investment have all risen. For some commodities market prices rather than the guarantees have become the main determinant of farmers' returns and the cost of direct support has fallen. On the other hand the industry is faced with an exceptionally severe rise in costs.
The review has taken place in the new context of our membership of the European Economic Community and we have extended the scope of our discussions with the farmers' unions accordingly. We have confirmed with the Commission that the determinations made in the light of the review conform to Article 54 of the Act of Accession.
The determinations have also had to pay full regard to the Government's counter-inflation policies. In making our decisions, we have concentrated on the implications for consumer prices. In this connection, the continuing paramount need is to maintain expansion of home output of food. In general this is the most effective way to offset high prices brought about by world shortages. The determinations are fully consistent with our counter-inflation policies. The industry is being asked to set higher productivity against very much increased costs.
There will be no immediate effect on consumer prices. As the cost increases this year show, fanners are very much involved in the fight against inflation. Their leaders recognise this. We are looking to the industry to make a positive contribution by absorbing a substantial part of its costs while continuing the expansion that is now under way.
The main features of the determinations are as follows:
Guaranteed prices will be increased:

—For wheat by £2·30 to £36·70 per ton;
—for barley by £2 to £33·20 per ton;
—for oats by £1·80 to £32 per ton;
—for potatoes by 45p to £17 per ton;
—for sugar beet by 26p per ton; the basis of the guarantee for sugar beet is being changed and the increase results in a guaranteed price of £6·97 per ton, roughly equivalent to £8·26 on the old basis;
—for fat sheep by 2·2p to 26·5p per 1b.;
—for wool by 2p to 25p for lb.;
—for fat pigs by 3p which, after allowing for feed adjustments, gives a new basic guaranteed price of £3·27 per score;
—for milk by l·5p to 24·6p per gallon; the Northern Ireland standard quality will be raised by 22 million gallons to 142 million gallons.

The guaranteed price for eggs is being left unchanged. The calf subsidy will be reduced to £8·50 a head for steers and £6·50 a head for heifers. The basic 30 per cent. rate of grant under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme will be reduced to 20 per cent., but the higher rates of grant for certain special purposes—including drainage and benefits to hill land-will remain unchanged.
A White Paper giving the basic data bearing on the review is being published today. This does not include, as previously, the schedule of the determinations which I have just announced. That will be circulated together with a detailed note of changes in the guarantee arrangements in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Copies of the schedule will also be available in the Library of the House.

Mr. Buchan: I thank the Minister for his statement. There is one obvious question. Has this been agreed with the farmers' unions? The right hon. Gentleman said that this has been an exceptional year. Does he not agree that the reason for that is the high prices which the British people have had to bear? Would he not further agree that, even since his own pleas, the price of fresh food has gone up by about 14 per cent.? Will he keep in


mind that while he has referred to consumers and producers there is a third party involved—the farm workers? Is it not one of the most shameful episodes in agriculture over the past year that there has been an explosion in prices while the farm workers' wages have been frozen at £16·20?
Does he not agree that it is exceptional for another reason—that half of the Price Review has been pre-empted by his sudden announcement a week ago about the removal of the beef guarantee system? Is he aware that we deplore this steady dismantling of a sound and proved system, helpful to both farmer and consumer? Will he also accept that something else is happening today, namely, discussions are taking place in Brussels about prices? Although we see the review figure before us today and the prognostications of the effects of the review upon consumers, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we still have to wait for the decisions that will be made in Brussels? Does he appreciate that I hope, as I said on Monday, that if the spaniel has rolled over on to its back at least it will bark when the question of prices arises?
I have a specific question about milk. Are the reports correct that there is a deficit in the milk fund of around £30 million? How does he propose to deal with that deficit? Will he wipe it out by a Treasury injection or is it to be met by additional increases in butter and cheese prices for the British people? If it is to be wiped out by the Treasury, does this not mean a subsidy, and will he stop talking nonsense about subsidies meaning rationing and extend the principle to other commodities?
Will he tell us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Will he tell us the value of the review in relation to the cost involved, which the fanners estimate to be about £300 million? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we need to examine this unusual review in detail and therefore shall demand a very early debate?
Finally, will he bear in mind that we do not exactly approve of a situation in which the Government preside with the grossest complacency over a period when we have had the sharpest price rises in our history?

Mr. Godber: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his difficulty in finding something about which to complain.
The hon. Gentleman first asked whether the review was agreed. I wish to make it plain that, in view of the wholly changed circumstances surrounding the review, I agreed with the farmers' leaders at the start of our discussions this year that the old convention of asking for agreement should be discontinued. [Laughter.] However, I have no reason to think that they dissent from our general approach. I am informed that they have commented in the following terms, which perhaps will create similar amusement:
Given reasonable returns from the market, given continuing improvement in productivity and normal weather, the determinations are such that resources should be available for expansion to continue.
I understand that that is the attitude of the farmers' unions.
Turning to what the hon. Gentleman said about prices, he continues to use price indices which I do not recognise. As I told him on Monday night when he used such indices, we are using precisely the same basis of index as the Opposition did when they were in office, and if the hon. Gentleman uses it he will be able to argue more effectively. I reject his figure of 14 per cent., which is unreal and incorrect. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] I gave the figure in the House last week. Those Members who shout "What is it?" apparently were not here. They should have been in their places. They will find the figure in HANSARD, and I suggest that they look for it. The figure which I gave was 3·5 per cent.
On the question of farmworkers' wages, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the conditions in which their rise, like that of other workers, is held up by the standstill. But on 1st April they will be entitled, subject to the legislation having been passed, to receive their award in full. The award is equivalent to about 20 per cent. and it will make a substantial contribution to correcting any anomalies in farmworkers' wages.
The hon. Gentleman made a complaint about the beef guarantee. Under the Community arrangements, the guide price and the intervention price are substantially higher than anything under the


guarantee. I believe that our farmers will benefit by this change.
With regard to milk and the deficit in the milk fund, there is a Written Question on the Order Paper today tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), but I hope that he will forgive me if I indicate in advance what the answer is. The Government have decided to write off the deficit of £31 million in the milk fund so as not to have to impose an increase in milk prices at this moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate. We shall be very happy to have a debate. It is customary for the Opposition to find time for one, and I challenge them to find it.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the Government's continuing intention to maintain the expansion of production. Can my right hon. Friend say by how much production has expanded since June 1970? Is it broadly his intention that all home egg requirements should be met by home producers? The cut in the capital grants will, regrettably and undoubtedly, disappoint some farmers. Can my right hon. Friend give any idea of the extent to which grants are in the pipeline—the extent of the investment involved?

Mr. Godber: There was a very substantial rise in productivity last year. There has been a slight check in the last few months, but the position is materially better than it was at the date indicated by my hon. Friend. The improvement in farming conditions since the Government came to office has been quite dramatic.
It is certainly our hope that the great majority of eggs consumed in this country will continue to be home produced, and I think that they will be. There is a temporary shortage at present, but I am confident that it will be corrected.
I understand what my hon. Friend says about the capital grant scheme, but the cost has been extremely high. It is expected to be over £90 million during the coming year, and some moderation was called for. However, I hope that farmers will continue to invest in buildings. It is important to recall that we have made no cut in the grant for drainage and other essentials, such as hill production.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Minister referred to the importance of agricultural production. Therefore, how does he justify the 10 per cent. cut in capital grants? What figure in money terms does that represent? This year costs are of the astronomical order of £285 million. Can the right hon. Gentleman give the total value of the determination? I accept that that may be difficult, but he should be able to compute the value.
Is it not the case that this is a substantial cost-minus review? Can the right hon. Gentleman be more specific about the effect of the review on the consumer? For example, how does he propose to recoup the milk deficit if liquid milk prices are to stay as they are? Will the effect be on manufactured milk? Is it not the case that the prices of butter and cheese may rise stiffly in the next few months? If so, the Minister should be frank and tell the House precisely what is to happen.
When will the Community review be published? Has the review already been agreed with the Council of Ministers? Will there have to be adjustments in our review in the light of the Community review?

Mr. Godber: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the cut in capital grants because it was he who increased the rates. However, as a result of the high rates, there has been high expenditure. It is estimated that in the coming 12 months expenditure will be over £90 million, which is a very substantial increase. There has been a dramatic rise over the past two years and it was time for a cut.
I agree that the figure for total costs —£285 million—is very large. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether this was a cost-minus review. We have not attempted a global total this year because the circumstances are very different. Commodities such as beef are coming out of the guarantee provisions of the review. It would not be realistic to seek to give a global total.
I have explained that the deficit in the milk fund is being written off. The prices which I have announced may change the position in the milk fund in the coming months. We shall have to assess the situation as we go along. No decision has been taken about consumer prices for the future.
The Community review will be considered at the Council of Ministers' meeting which I shall be attending next week. There will be another one in April, and there may have to be a third meeting. However, the review should be announced before the end of April. No reassessment in our own review will be required, except for commodities for which there is no longer a guarantee, such as beef, in the light of determinations made in Brussels.

Sir D. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that consumers will be thankful that this review will have no effect on prices? Is he also aware that farmers are thankful for mainly good weather and a consistently good Minister—or two consistently good Ministers—and that in East Anglia, in particular, we are grateful for the increases in the guarantee prices for cereals and sugar beet? However, will he bear in mind for the immediate future the great desirability of publishing with the White Paper the changes in the guarantees and in any other arrangements which he makes? It will be rather inconvenient for those who follow farming matters to have to obtain a copy of HANSARD and the White Paper separately.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments, as I am sure is my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. I hope that the arrangements for commodities to which he refers will benefit East Anglia. The position about the statement of the figures in the review is that, as we have changed the whole format of the review, and as so much is applicable to our consideration of Community affairs, it is probably better to keep our national determinations separate, but I will take account of what my right hon. and learned Friend said.

Mr. Hooson: The Minister said that there will be no immediate effect on consumer prices. Will he define exactly what he means by "immediate" in this context? After reducing the calf subsidies and increasing the price for cereals, does he expect farmers to grow more cereals when there is a shortage of meat, or does he rely upon the increase in beef prices to take charge of that?

Mr. Godber: In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I said

that there will be no immediate increase in prices, and that is perfectly true. The only commodity that would be directly affected is milk if the Government were to take a decision. There is no question of a decision at the moment. I do not intend to anticipate if and when there might in future be an announcement.
In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question on the price of cereals, I am not advocating that farmers should grow more or less of a particular commodity. It is for farmers themselves to judge the commodities for which their farm is best suited. The call of the market for beef is very strong and the call of the market for sheep is strong— and we have increased the sheep guarantee. These meats are both wanted on the market. I trust that farmers will increase production both of meat and of cereals.

Mr. Kilfedder: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision on eggs, I should like him to explain why the Government waited until this year, instead of taking action last year, to help egg producers, when so many of them have been facing bankruptcy. Does my right hon. Friend realise that the reduction in the rate of capital improvements— [Interruption.] I am not sure whether some of my hon. Friends want to intervene in the middle of my question. Does my right hon. Friend realise that a reduction in the rate of capital improvements will hit farmers badly in many parts of the United Kingdom? We have heard the comment of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) about Wales, and the reduction will also hit farmers in Northern Ireland, who have a higher capital involvement in new buildings because of the large number of small farms.

Mr. Godber: I note what my hon. Friend says about eggs. The decision to phase out the guarantees on eggs was taken some time ago, I think in principle by the Labour Government when they were in power. The guarantee will be phased out over the next year, but I hope that the arrangements made for this year will be of some help.
It is important to put capital improvements into perspective. The Government —and successive Governments over the years—have provided large sums to help


with capital improvements. There has been a great opportunity for capital improvements, and the amount of money that is being spent both by farmers and by the Government has reached an all-time record. The amount spent by the Government on capital improvements has reached about one-third of the total cost of agricultural support. It has become out of proportion. That is why the Government have decided that the grant should be scaled down.

Mr. Alfred Morris: What has been the reaction of the National Farmers' Union to the reduction in capital grants? The Minister emphasised "immediate" when he said that there would be no immediate effect on consumer prices. Against the utterly shocking increase in food prices since the Government came to power, how does the Minister see the movement of prices in the year ahead? Why is he so deeply complacent about this important matter?

Mr. Godber: I am certainly not complacent. The whole point of this review, like previous reviews, is to expand production at home. That is the essential point. The hon. Gentleman may recall what the Gulliver report had to say about this in relation to beef prices. It said
Our view is that whatever the merits or demerits of agricultural subsidies on other grounds the effect on prices has been favourable to consumers.
We are encouraging increased production. That is the whole purpose. I do not pretend that the announcement on capital grants has met with favour from farmers or landowners, but it has to be seen as part of the whole perspective. I hope they will consider the points I have made.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I accept that the review is a good one and is welcomed by the majority of farmers. Will my right hon. Friend enlarge on his wish for expansion in cereal production? What level of expansion does he expect? My right hon. Friend has changed the arrangements for sugar beet. Will he say a little about the level of acreage and uptake of the sugar beet crop? On the whole I am sure that farmers—particularly dairy farmers—will welcome the increase that has been given, which will help to stimulate the production of the dairy industry, and also the production

of beef from the bottom of the dairy herds.

Mr. Godber: I would not like to forecast the precise results of cereal production expansion, but there is a genuine stimulus to increase production. Equally, there is a genuine stimulus to increase production of red meat. I hope very much that we shall get both. If I had to choose, I would say the more beef and lamb we could have, the better I would be pleased.
On sugar beet, the position is that the British Sugar Corporation has offered an additional 25,000 acres. This acreage is outside the guarantee arrangement, which is limited to 443,000 acres under the previous arrangements, but this acreage will be at world prices and has been contracted in that sense. This will be the future pattern for increases of this kind under the Treaty of Accession which was signed two years ago. There is an incentive, and with the present shortage of these foods, including sugar, on world markets there is a good demand for them.

Mr. Mackie: In view of the taunting indulged in by the right hon. Gentleman, and his right hon. and hon. Friends, of the Labour Government for not increasing the cereal acreage, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the tillage acreage is less over five years, in spite of two first-class harvests? There has also been an increase in the import of cereals of 500,000 tons. Is not the right hon. Gentleman's much-vaunted increase due principally to the weather and imports?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, whatever the acreage of cereals, the crop yield has been a record one. That shows the way farming is going. We can take pleasure in this—[Interruption.] I did not say I was taking credit, I said that I was taking pleasure. Both sides of the House surely take pleasure in this achievement of the farming community.
I believe that there is a good incentive for production both of cereals and livestock. The important thing is to get a greater yield per acre, because the acreage available both for crops and grass is relatively static and we cannot do much about that.

Mr. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position of the horticultural industry? Which of the announcements he has made today will affect the future incomes of growers, particularly the announcement on the capital grants scheme, if it applies?

Mr. Godber: That is always a problem, and horticulture does not figure directly in the review. It figures only in relation to certain specific matters, for instance, fertilisers, which we are not changing. Horticulture has its own improvement scheme which is not affected by the farm grants, and that scheme will continue in its present form. An announcement was made in the House last week about an important new arangement for apple and pear growers, which I hope will help. We are seeking to help horticulture in such ways as we can.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister unable or unwilling to put a figure on the total value of the review? If he continues to be coy, the suspicion is bound to grow that the Government are far from meeting the gargantuan increase in farmers' costs last year. Is he satisfied that the removal of the Government subsidy is the right method for improving and increasing the production of livestock and ensuring a growing flow of store cattle for fattening?

Mr. Godber: I am seldom accused in this House of being coy, and I am not being coy on this matter. This is not a case of our being unable or unwilling, but what has happened is that the whole situation has changed and it is no longer applicable to give a total figure. It would have been easy to keep beef in the review and to give a bigger increase and to include it within an artificial global total, but this would have had no meaning. The farming community recognises that factor, and this is why we have not attempted to equate it in that way.
I presume that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me correctly on calf subsidy. I did not say that it was being removed; I said it was being cut by 25 per cent. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman said "removed". I think that this is a fair situation in relation to the high price of beef which has been received from the market and that some cut was only fair. I hope that farmers will accept it in that sense.

Mr. Wiggin: Why has my right hon. Friend chosen this moment to cut capital grants by one-third? It seems particularly inappropriate at a time when the country has enjoyed only two years of prosperity under a Conservative Government, with our scarcely having paid off the debts incurred under six years of Labour Government, and when the industry at last has something to invest. As we go into the Common Market, surely this is the time to encourage capital investment.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry if my hon. Friend thinks that this is unreasonable, but it must be remembered that it was a Conservative Government who first introduced capital grants. Indeed, I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture at that time some 15 years ago, and we have consistently supported farm capital grants in one form or another. When the cost of grants has risen to become such a high proportion of the total amount, it means that other aspects of farm support must suffer if capital grants dominate. There must be a fair balance between the two. Furthermore, in the last two years farmers have been investing strongly. All applications that were in before my announcement will still stand. The estimate of expenditure for the coming year will be the highest on record.

Mr. Strang: Is the £8 million cut in calf subsidy not a serious set-back for beef producers, many of whom are hill and marginal farmers, at a time when we are trying to increase the beef cow population? Is this not another electoral gimmick, as was the instant Christmas beef prices report, or is it a first step in dismantling the production grant system? Is this not another milestone along the road of the Government's obstinate refusal to try to protect the British people from the worst excesses of the common agricultural policy? Is it not the food consumers and farmworkers who are suffering? Tomorrow it will be the farmers.

Mr. Godber: That is an odd comment to make. This is not a gimmick. Seldom has a reduction in subsidy been called a gimmick. I believe that it is a fair allocation of funds when one recognises the way in which prices have gone up. I have been accused by Labour Members


of not doing anything about this problem. Therefore, I believe that this is a fair cut, and I hope that it will be accepted by the farming community. In terms of market prices there should still be adequate incentive to the beef producer. If the hon. Gentleman says that the price of beef is falling, does he want the price of beef to stay up and affect the housewife? Presumably he wants the farmer to have a high price and the consumer a low price? That is a situation we cannot have. I regard this as a fair cut, and I believe that it will be so regarded by the farming community. I believe that they will continue with the remarkable expansion of beef production. As the White Paper shows, there has been an increase of 60 per cent. in the number of beef heifers in calf, and this is a record in the history of agriculture.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that housewives will welcome the continued emphasis on expansion because they know, despite what the Opposition say, that the only way to lower prices is to have a very large expansion? My own farmers, who farm mainly in the hills and on marginal land, will welcome the rise in the price of lamb and wool and the retention of the capital grants at a higher level for hill farms. They will not greet with enthusiasm the reduction in calf subsidy but, with soaring prices as they are, they will agree that it is fair.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words. I am glad about what she said about lamb. It is important to encourage increased production of lamb, and if her judgment is that her constituents will respond in this way, this is one of the best encouragements and assurances housewives can have.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not wish to question your discretion or your choice, but, for the guidance of the House, would you say whether it is fair that every single Member who has been called on the Conservative benches happens to be a farmer?

Mr. Speaker: This is entirely a matter for me. I wish I were as omniscient as the hon. Gentleman appears to be.

Mr. Loughlin: Does the Minister agree that the primary purpose of previous price reviews has been, first, to hold down the cost of food, and, secondly, to maintain the prosperity of the farming industry? What Government money is involved in this price review, how will it affect the farming community in terms of receipts, and how will it affect any reduction of any kind in food prices which the housewife will pay? Is this not merely an academic exercise in the context of the dear food policy pursued by the Government?

Mr. Godber: No, certainly not. The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is an absurdity in relation to the Government's stimulus to farm production. The whole basis of the price review, as the hon. Gentleman said, is to help to hold down the price of food by increased production and to help the farming community. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the figure of support. He will find it on page 34 of the White Paper. The total is £258·9 million, with the exception of the EEC figures which are given separately. This is Government expenditure over the whole field, including the best estimate we can make of market returns over the forthcoming 12 months. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) can think of a more accurate way of assessing it, I should be interested to know.

Mr. Kimball: Is it not a fact that—

Mr. Huckfield: Another farmer!

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has raised a dangerous point. Does he suggest that I should not call trade unionists on trade union matters?

Mr. Kimball: Is it not a fact that the details of the farm price review were disclosed to the European Commissioner for Agriculture early last week? I make no complaint about good journalism in terms of the very accurate report of the farm price review which appeared in a Sunday newspaper, but is there not an important point involved for this House when a matter as important as the farm price review is leaked from Brussels? I hope that my right hon. Friend will draw the attention of the Brussels authorities to the importance attached by the House to receiving information on this matter


before it is leaked to the Press from Brussels?

Mr. Godber: I understand my hon. Friends feelings, but if he studies the review of the Sunday reports to which he refers he will find that no single report was as accurate as reports which have appeared on previous occasions. In fact, journalists have not received any information of this kind. The information was given in confidence in Brussels at the end of last week. I considered making a prior statement to the House, but I felt that the House would prefer me to do so in the final form in which I have made the statement today.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that on reflection you will think again about the remark which you made just now. The inference, if there is any, from what my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said was that the farmer could be construed as having a pecuniary interest, whereas on reflection I am sure you will agree that it is unworthy to suggest that a trade unionist would have a pecuniary interest in seeking to better the lot of fellow trade unionists. I think, Sir, you might reflect about this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I deprecate that interjection. I am prepared to have the matter discussed and perhaps I might have one or two things to say about it. It perhaps will not be inapposite on a matter which we shall be discussing later today. I tried to consider the constituencies represented by hon. Members and I sought to get a spread through the country. I do not think I have called only farmers, but it is a matter for me.

Mr. Huckfield: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had no wish to cast aspersions upon the Chair. In fact the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Robert C. Brown) is

an important one in that most trade-union-sponsored Members on this side of the House both make known their interest and frequently declare that they do not desire to hide their interest. But surely it is at odds with the traditions of this House for certain hon. Members on the Government benches to pose as defenders of the consumers when they happen to be farmers themselves?

Mr. Speaker: I certainly did take the hon. Gentleman's remark as a reflection upon the Chair suggesting that my discretion was unfairly affected by the occupations of those hon. Members on the Government benches whom I called. I was not aware that all of them were farmers, though that may be the position. I was considering their constituencies and their spread throughout the country, which is what I try to do on all occasions.

Mr. Peter Shore: We can see that farmers, both in this House and outside it, may get some short-term satisfaction from the catalogue of price increases to which the Minister has referred. But what joy is there for the housewife? Is not it the case that the high prices which the right hon. Gentleman announced are a reflection of the cost of inflation of the past year and are simply a prelude to further price increases to come in the years ahead?

Mr. Godber: The answer is "No". In my view the price increases announced here should stimulate increased production and thus be of direct help to the British housewife. It is the shortage of supplies which has put up prices, as the right hon Gentleman knows. The way to overcome that shortage is either to produce more here or to import more. We are importing wherever supplies are available, but to produce more is the surest way, and we should give our farmers the fullest support in doing that.

Following is the information:

Determinations for 1973–74



Guarantee levels for 1972–73
Guarantee levels for 1973–74


Commodity or production grant
As determined in March 1972 after the Annual Review 1972
Change from col. (2)
As determined after the Annual Review 1973


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)


Guaranteed prices:


Wheat (per ton)
£34·40
+£2·30
£36·70


Barley (per ton)
£31·20
+£2½00
£33·20


Oats (per ton)
 £30·20
+£1·80
£32·00


Potatoes (per ton)
 £16·55
+45p
£17·00


Sugar beet (per ton)
£8·00 equivalent to £6·71 on the new basis
26·5p
£6·97


Fat sheep and lambs (per lb. estimated dressed carcase weight)
24·3p
+2·2p
26·5p


Fat pigs (per score deadweight)
£2·81 related to a feed price of £1·96 per cwt. On the basis of the current feed price this is equivalent to £3·24
+3p
£3·27 related to a feed price of £2 53 per cwt.


Milk (per gallon)
23·lp
+l·5p
24·6p


Eggs—hen (per dozen)
16·0p
no change
16·0p


Eggs—duck (per dozen)
15·5p
no change
15·5p


Wool (per lb.)
 23·0p
+2p
25p


Production grant


Calf subsidy—


per eligible steer
£11·25
—£2·75
£8·50


per eligible heifer
£9·00
—£2·50
£6·50

The basic rate of grant under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme is being reduced from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. The change will apply to all new applications as from the day after the announcement

EXPLANATORY NOTES

CEREALS
1. The cereal year will be brought into line with that used under the common agricultural policy, i.e., a year beginning on 1st August instead of 1st July as at present. To effect this change, the 1973–74 cereal year will run from 1st July 1973 to 31st July 1974—a "13-month" year.
2. Guaranteed prices will in future be determined in £ per ton instead of £ per cwt.
3. Target indicator price arrangements for wheat and barley will be abolished with effect from 1st July 1973.
4. As announced on 7th March 1973, the rye guarantee is to be terminated with effect from 1st July 1973.

SUGAR BEET
5. For the 1973 crop, if production from the guaranteed acreage (443,000 acres) exceeds the quantity of beet needed to produce 900,000 metric tons of white sugar for which the British Sugar Corporation is obliged to pay the minimum beet price under Community arrangements, the Government will make up to the guaranteed level the average return for any additional beet from that acreage.
6. Producers have hitherto received a guaranteed price for beet delivered to the factory and have had no rights to the resulting pulp. Under Community arrangements they will receive a minimum price for beet delivered to

"collecting centres" (normally at or near the farm gate); the ownership of the pulp remains with the grower, but it may be offered to the processor for purchase separately. The National Farmers' Union and the British Sugar Corporation have agreed on values for delivery to the factory and for the pulp rights. The 1972–73 guaranteed price of £8.00 per ton on the old basis is taken to be equivalent to £6.71 on the new basis. The guaranteed price for 1973–74 is expressed accordingly on the new basis.
7. The guarantee for sugar beet will be terminated with effect from 1st July 1974.

FAT CATTLE
8. As announced on 7th March 1973, the guarantee for fat cattle is to be terminated with effect from 26th March 1973.

FAT SHEEP

9. The estimated price for the year as a whole will be 27.0p per lb estimated dressed carcase weight. With effect from 26th March 1973, new scales of weekly standard prices and weekly estimated prices will be introduced and these scales will be adjusted to take account of the expected market situation for the year. The estimated price arrangements will be adjusted so that if the average market price realised should fall short of the estimated price in any week by more than 2½p per lb estimated dressed carcase weight, the guarantee payment would then be subject to a corresponding reduction, up to a maximum reduction of 1½p per lb estimated dressed carcase weight.

FAT PIGS
10. As announced on 24th January 1973, the flexible guarantee is to be discontinued with effect from 26th March 1973.
11. The use of a feed formula in establishing the standard price will in future be discretionary, so that the arrangement may be terminated at a suitable time. The new guaranteed price is related to a feed price of £2·53 per cwt., which is deemed to be equivalent to 1,000 points on an index representing the price of a feed ration. For every movement of 5·3 points from 1,000 points (equivalent to about l·33p per cwt.), the guaranteed price will be adjusted by 1p per score.

MILK
12. The standard quantity for Northern Ireland will be increased by 22 million gallons to 142 million gallons.

EGGS
13. The estimated producer prices for 1973-74 will be 15·0p per dozen for hen eggs and 155p per dozen for duck eggs.
14. Guarantee payments will in future be made on eggs graded to the Class A standard under Community arrangements instead of the first quality standard under previous arrangements.

CALF SUBSIDY
15. The rates for Calf Subsidy Stage A will be reduced to £8·50 a head for steers and £6·50 a head for heifers for calves born on or after 16th April 1973. Payments at these reduced rates will not start being made until he autumn when calves born after 15th April will first become eligible for subsidy.
16. The rates of subsidy at Stage B will not be affected by these changes during the life of the present scheme.

FARM CAPITAL GRANT SCHEME
17. The standard rate of grant will be reduced from 30 per cent. of approved capital expenditure to 20 per cent. This new rate of grant will apply to all applications for approval received after 21st March 1973.
18. There is no change in the special higher rates of grant for drainage, for certain works and facilities of benefit to hill land or hill farms, for re-modelling work consequent upon a farm amalgamation or boundary adjustment, or for certain orchard grubbing work.

GENERAL
19. Many of the above changes are subject to parliamentary approval.

AGRICULTURE (EEC MINISTERS' MEETING)

Mr. Marten: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

the meeting of the Council of Ministers of Agriculture in the Common Market next Monday, 26th, and Tuesday, 27th March, at which meeting agricultural prices will be discussed.
There is little doubt that this is a specific issue. Although the agenda has not been published, all the information coming from the Community is that this matter will be discussed.
It is self-evident that it is an important matter at a time when Her Majesty's Government are desperately trying to keep down food prices and when the Commission is trying to raise agricultural prices in the Community.
This House should say before the meeting begins on Monday that we, this sovereign British Parliament, will not accept any higher Common Market farm prices. This would back up admirably my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his fight against this nonsensical common agricultural policy.
To show that the matter is urgent, I have only to point out that if any agreement should be reached on Monday or Tuesday over farm prices in the Common Market it will be final, and under Section 2 of the European Communities Act a regulation will be issued which will be directly applicable to this country, and we in this House will have no opportunity to overturn it or even to debate it. Tomorrow is the last opportunity that this sovereign House of Commons will have an occasion on which to express its view very firmly to my right hon. Friend that we will not have any increase in prices from the Common Market.
I recognise that we already have a debate under Standing Order No. 9 today, and I am sure that that will not affect your judgment, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow we shall be discussing the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill. I hope that you will not say that this matter can be debated then, because I want a decision taken at the end of a Standing Order No. 9 debate and not merely have the matter discussed in the course of our debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will grant this application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) asks leave to move


the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the meeting of the Council of Ministers of Agriculture in the Common Market next Monday, 26th, and Tuesday, 27th March, at which meeting agricultural prices will be discussed.
I make no comment on what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am directed to give no reason for my decision. I am not prepared to allow a Standing Order No. 9 debate.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply)—

(1) the Business of Supply may be anticipated by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House;
(2) Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and
(3) the Business of Supply may be proceeded with thought opposed until Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Jopling.]

HOSPITAL SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Leave having been given on Tuesday 20th March under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
the deteriorating situation in the hospital service.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I realise that this debate will cut into today's business, and I would not have raised the matter in this way had it not seemed to me that we had reached a crisis point in our hospital service. At the last count 29,100 hospital beds were out of action, and the number is likely to increase.
What is terrifying about this situation is that it results from an industrial dispute in an area where there has never been any strike action on pay grounds before; yet in this instance, out of 401 branches of the National Union of Public Employees, 352 voted for industrial action.
This change in the attitude of hospital workers becomes even more impressive when one sees the degree of support that their claims are receiving. Apart altogether from the TUC there are, for example, the Medical Practitioners Union, which says:
Everybody working in the NHS knows that since its beginning it has depended on cheap labour",
and the BMA, which says:
In a just society ancillary workers are entitled to a fair reward for their work.
Nor is that attitude confined to those working directly with the hospital workers. The departmental report of the Department of Employment warned the Secretary of State a year ago:
That the health service is not threatened by industrial action conflict owes more to the dedication of those employed than to any favourable comparison on the grounds of pay and conditions.
The Department's warning was underlined in another sentence:
The service has for a long time been able to get by on the goodwill of its employees. There are signs that a more positive approach is needed.


There was much to be concerned about. The average earnings for adult male manual workers in manufacturing industry amounted last October to £36½20 a week for 44½1 hours. The Secretary of State admits that the average earnings of adult male ancillary workers are just under £28 a week for 46 hours, or £8 a week less for working longer hours.
Even that bald fact does not show the real situation. More than one-third of male ancillary staff are on shift work and more than two-thirds work weekends. Incidentally, even when they are not working weekends, operating theatre attendants for example often have to remain on standby which means that they must not leave their homes for most of the weekend in case they are required. It is true that they receive extra payment for this burden. They are paid the princely sum of 5p an hour.
Another factor which shows that average manufacturing earnings are not a proper standard of comparison is that more than seven out of every 100 male ancillary staff are in supervisory grades and that, while their earnings may not be all that high, they help to increase the average. The reality of the situation is that 41½3 per cent. of male workers earn less than £25 a week before deductions.
I know how difficult it is to assimilate or give proper weight to percentages and average earnings. For that reason I should like to give the House some examples of the earnings of individual workers in the service. A fortnight ago the West Suffolk Hospital Management Committee invited applications for the post of head porter. I see that the Financial Times yesterday described a head porter as
the tin god who runs the show.
The advertisement goes some way to support that description because it states that what is required is
a person of initiative and drive who will be responsible for the supervision, training and control of 40 staff.
For that tin god the basic rate of pay for a 40-hour week is £24½30. There has been no noticeable queue of applicants for the position.
Let us take the case of a pharmacy assistant. His duties, according to the official handbook, include the assembling

and dismantling of equipment, the cleaning of glassware equipment, the inspection of fluids for particulate matter and the bulk preparation of fluids such as saline solutions and sterile water, including the mixing, filling, sealing, labelling and packaging of containers and ampoules. His pay is £1916 a week. Incidentally, a woman doing that work receives £16½96.
Let us consider the position of a mortuary attendant. His duties include the opening up and what is euphemistically called the reconstituting of bodies and their disposal, the disposal of specimens and the care of post-mortem instruments. For that work he receives £19½80 a week.
The Secretary of State has said that few men among ancillary workers receive less than £18 a week. That is a misleading view of the situation because 52 per cent. of full-time women workers earn less than £18 a week. Women represent 70 per cent. of the ancillary staff. Incidentally, 19 per cent. of women workers do shift work and 70 per cent. have to work weekends.
These facts, and they are supported by all those who have investigated the state of the service, demonstrate the strength of the hospital workers' claim. Nevertheless it is true that they have been badly paid for a very long time. Why now, for the first time, has the situation boiled up into a major industrial dispute? To understand this we must realise that the hospital workers' last pay award was made in December 1971. As long ago as last July they notified the employers of their intention to make another claim. Early in September they gave them details of it. It was a claim that amounted to £4 a week. There are many hon. Members who, considering the rise in the cost of living during this period and how badly paid the hospital workers are, would regard that as a triumph of moderation.
In early September the management promised to consider the claim and agreed that whatever settlement was reached would run from 13th December. By 27th October—that is, seven or eight weeks later—when no further reaction had been vouchsafed by the management, it was again pressed by the union. We must remember that this was before the


pay freeze came into operation. The management was not prepared to make a firm offer because it insisted on awaiting the outcome of Government policy.
The Secretary of State seems pleased with his offer of £2 for men and £1-80 for women. He compares the offer to hospital workers with that given to local government workers, with whom they have been traditionally linked. All the argument, he says, resolves itself into 40p a week as the local government workers have been given £2½40 against the offer to the hospital workers of £2. He leaves us with the impression that the women hospital workers will do better than the local government workers because by October they will have received £2½60 this year—that is, £1½80 now and an 80p equal pay increment in October.
The comparison is misleading. Local government women workers received the full £2½40. In addition they will be getting their equal pay increment in October. The Secretary of State is trying to count his 80p twice, if not three times over, because the increment was agreed as long ago as 1970, and the women received their first equal pay increment in 1971 and their second in 1972. In practice, the gap between the hospital workers and the local government workers will not narrow but widen. Faced with that situation, all those directly concerned have urged the Secretary of State to set up an independent inquiry into the pay of the ancillary workers.
The Secretary of State seemed to assume that his offer to let the Pay Board consider the matter satisfied the demand from the BMA and the TUC. Of course it does no such thing. The BMA makes the simple point that as the Secretary of State refuses to authorise an independent inquiry, presumably the Pay Board will have to do it. What is needed is a speedy decision by a body which will make recommendations which will then be accepted.
The hospital workers are prepared to rest their case on that basis. The BMA and the TUC believe that that is right. Only the Secretary of State and his colleagues continue to prevaricate. The truth is that the Pay Board will not suffice. It can make recommendations but it cannot ensure that its recommendations are carried out. In any event, with

the best will in the world, such recommendations will not be translated into increases until December of this year, or two years after the hospital workers received their last increase.
It is no answer to the situation to say that there can be no exceptions to the Government policy. An exceptional injustice requires an exceptional remedy. The duty laid directly on the right hon. Gentleman by Parliament is to take the responsibility for the running of the health service. If he fails to meet the just demands of the workers he will be failing in his duty to the service.

4.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): It might help the House if I now set out the facts, as far as I know them, and the Government's policy. If there are new issues that arise during the debate I shall ask the leave of the House to wind up briefly at the end of the debate.
We all share the great concern about the state of the hospitals. I do not quarrel in general with the figures of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) relating to the present position. There are some 9,000 ancillary workers on strike—that is, about 5 per cent. of the total ancillary staff. There are 300 hospitals directly affected by strikes, and many more are affected by working to rule, go-slows and overtime bans. There are nearly 30,000 beds out of use. That is about 12 per cent. of the acute or mainly acute beds in the National Health Service.
The strike action takes the form of rolling strikes. They continue mostly for limited periods, but with some of indefinite length. They affect the portering, catering, laundry and transport functions of hospitals. The position changes from day to day. As some strikes end and other strikes begin, different hospitals are faced with difficulties at various times. In each case so far a solution has been found.
I acknowledge again that the four unions concerned gave a pledge to maintain essential services, and they have done their best to keep that pledge. In some areas they have had, and are having, difficulty in persuading local union representatives to maintain a reasonable, basic level of essential services. I do not believe


that that is for lack of effort at their national headquarters.
I must make it clear that even where steps are taken to keep essential services going there is inevitably a risk to health in the case of people who do not require emergency treatment but for whom delay in admission to hospital may have serious consequences. We have taken the view that the hospital authorities should not appeal for or employ volunteers as long as essential services are being maintained. The reason for this is that the unions have said that they will not keep to their undertaking to maintain essential services in the event of volunteers being employed. It is in the interests of the patients not to risk total disruption of the services.
There are occasionally in the newspapers stories of what I can only describe, although I wish to be moderate, as excessive behaviour here and there, such as a total withdrawal in a particular hospital which I believe goes beyond the unions' own wishes. For my part, I have made it clear to the hospital authorities that if a safe level of essential services cannot be maintained in a hospital they will have to look to volunteers, but that before any such action is taken we put the position to the unions. This has already had to occur in some cases.

Mr. John Silkin: For the information of the House and perhaps of the country, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the headquarters of the unions concerned have said that if any case of local difficulty arises they will be happy to receive representations from the Department to remedy the matter?

Sir K. Joseph: There has been throughout some sort of hot line operating between my Department and the national headquarters, and I have paid tribute to the efforts of the unions. Despite their efforts, however, they have not always succeeded. There are local negotiations which local hospital authorities are anxious to continue before referring to me so that I can refer to the national headquarters. But, despite their efforts, there are still disputes where essential services are not being supplied.
In these conditions, the hospital service is continuing to serve patients and public, but at the expense of very great efforts

by the staff—that is, the nurses, doctors, paramedical and technical staff, administrative staff and so on. I am doing no more than expressing the admiration and gratitude of the country when I pay tribute to the intense efforts of all those concerned in the hospitals.
The conditions vary sharply from place to place and from day to day. In some places, the staff are very tired, particularly where the unions are not managing, despite their efforts, to keep their pledge to maintain essential services. But hon. Members, knowing the qualities of human beings in general and of the staff of the National Health Service in particular, will not be surprised to learn that, whether they are tired or not, in most places, although not all, morale in the hospitals is very high indeed. There is a great strain on the staff, especially the nurses, doctors and administrators, which is sometimes nearly intolerable, but they are managing to keep services going, although not full services. I repeat that this is bound to be damaging to the public.
I turn now to the dispute itself. The ancillary staff are an essential part of the National Health Service. I do not think that anyone in this House, and certainly anyone in the Government, would wish to deny that. There are about 200,000 of them, two-thirds of them women and one-third of them men. They have in common the fact that their duties do not require the possession of professional qualifications, but that does not mean that they are without training or are all unskilled. It is true that unskilled staff are appointed to many grades and many receive appropriate training in hospital— in some cases there are relevant diplomas and certificates, and extra pay available for those who hold them.
We have, therefore, in the ancillary staff a variety of duties and a spectrum of skills which at the bottom correspond to those of unskilled staff and at the top border on those of professionally qualified staff. The basic rates of pay now range from £17½48 to £26½36 for men and £15½28 to £24½28 for women for a 40-hour week. There is a variety of additional payments for night work, shift work, weekend work and overtime. Average earnings for men are £27½90 for an average 46-hour week and for women £20½83 for an average 42-hour week.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that these rates are far too low? Does he recall that the National Board for Prices and Incomes in April 1971 said that the hospital workers in these grades were £3½5 below average earnings in industry and that the National Institute for Economic Research 12 months later said that they were £5 below? Was it not the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the problem then?

Sir K. Joseph: Perhaps I should develop what I have to say. I shall try to meet the point put by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley).
I was explaining what the average earnings are. The ancillary staff get three weeks' paid holiday as well as the six days' normal paid public holidays. Of course I have studied the Prices and Incomes Board's report. It said that the women—who constitute two-thirds of the ancillary staff—were not low paid but that the men, particularly some of them, were.
Can I assert to the House that the National Health Service presents a model of employment practice in connection with ancillary staff? No, I cannot. It is no revelation that, as the report mentioned by the right hon. Member for Deptford disclosed, the personnel habits of the National Health Service have not been a model. But we have recognised that, and in the reorganised service which, if Parliament approves, will come into force in April next year we have made provision for the first time for personnel departments throughout the National Health Service, and a great deal of training in preparation for them is now going on.
Before I go on, I must emphasise that I am not seeking to negotiate with the unions, and anything I say today is not by way of negotiation but by way of reporting the facts.
It is normal, as the right hon. Member for Deptford said, for National Health service ancillary workers to reach the same settlement as the local government workers. The fact is that last year, after the failure of the Government-CBI-TUC tripartite talks—at the end of the day because of the TUC's unwillingness to agree to a voluntary policy—the Govern-

ment imposed a standstill. The standstill was on such a date that the local government settlement got through while the hospital ancillary workers were caught.
In the outcome, the local government workers had their pay increased by £2½40 and received two days' extra holiday, whereas under the stage 2 formula, which is all that is available until the autumn for the ancillary workers, they are allowed only £1 plus 4 per cent., which has come out at £2 for the men and £1½80 for the women, with an extra 80p for the women from October as an extra step towards equal pay. That extra pay—£2 for men, £1½80 for women—is available from last week. It will bring the basic pay up to £19½48 for men and £17½08 for women and will bring the average earnings up to over £30 for men and nearly £23 for women. So there is extra money available now.

Mr. Neil McBride: Is the right hon. Gentleman not being illogical? He is quoting the figures for earnings, but is not the freeze formula of £1 plus 4 per cent. for earnings for the basic week? Would it not be better to consider the basic wage? It would be more illuminating, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said.

Sir K. Joseph: I am certainly willing to express it in terms of the basic wage. In such terms, it represents an offer, available now, of an 11 per cent. increase for men on the basic rate. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) asked me to express the incomes in terms of the basic rate although I have been scrupulously avoiding doing so because we are dealing with the whole range of rates.
Never before, I believe, have the hospital workers been offered an increase so very close to the increase available to those with much higher pay. That is one result of the stage 2 formula. But, of course, the Government accept that the ancillary workers have been disappointed. They have not got the same as the local government workers. It is a case not just as I have sometimes said by way of shorthand, of 40p per week but that they have also suffered deferment of three months compared with local government workers. The Government acknowledge this disappointment. That is why they


have particularly required the Pay Board to look at the anomalies and why the unions have been invited to take such anomalies before the Pay Board.
The right hon. Member for Deptford and the Opposition suggest that there should be an individual inquiry. But individual inquiries, as the country and successive Governments have found to their cost over recent years, on the whole solve only one problem at the cost of starting a whole series of other interrelated problems. The Government do not intend to make any exceptions during stage 2. Because of the repercussions of one exception on all other unions, there can be no case whatsoever for a separate inquiry.
The Pay Board has been specifically required to examine a whole range of pay anomalies and the problems of relativities which may be taken to it and to recommend, on the merits of the various groups, how best to deal with them in stage 3. The board has been asked to recommend in time for stage 3 so that the Government can take its recommendations on these matters into account in putting to the House proposals for stage 3, which will start in the autumn.
I remind the House that the hospital ancillaries would normally expect another increase in December. Their next increase could take into account within the stage 3 policy the Government's reactions to the advice of the Pay Board. I repeat that we cannot treat the hospital ancillaries as a special case. A number of groups and unions are also seeking special treatment. They would press all the harder for themselves if an exception were made even for the hospital workers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State has just declared that one reason why this impasse has been reached with the hospital workers and, indeed, all other workers, is that an inquiry or series of inquiries—I assume that he had Wilberforce in mind—has resulted in the present situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not only suggesting that there can be no inquiry into this case but that, presumably if Wilberforce and others produced the situation we now have, making the general declaration that there can be no

further inquiries in phase 2, phase 3, or thereafter?

Sir K. Joseph: The Pay Board has been set up so that individual anomalies and problems about relativities can be considered not in isolation but in relation to each other within the total pay policy and strategy of the Government to abate inflation. I am sure that the whole country understands and approves that policy. I repeat: the stage 2 policy is essential not only for the nation but particularly for the lower-paid. It is the lower-paid who suffer most in a free-for-all. Freedom for the large, higher-paid battalions to raise their pay beyond any possible increase in productivity must mean higher prices for the less well paid.
So I repeat my advice to the unions. They have made their point that they feel they need special attention and that they have been disappointed by the effects of the standstill coupled with stage 2. Let them accept the £2 per week extra for men and the £1½80 per week for women with the further 80p per week for women in October that is there waiting for their members. Let them accept the offer take their case to the Pay Board and go back to their work of serving the patients and co-operating with the hospital staff.
The Government will not give way, even to the hospital workers, because of the repercussions on other unions. The national interest is at stake. I repeat, with all the emphasis at my command, that the delay in settling this dispute is damaging to the public, straining the hospital service, and deferring the drawing of the extra money now available.
With some relish, having been carefully moderate, I now turn to a separate issue —the credentials of the Opposition to raise this whole subject. What did the Opposition, when in Government, do for the hospital ancillaries? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has looked up the record.
During the period of the Labour Government prices rose by 30 per cent. [Interruption.] I shall disclose the true comparison. During the six years of the Labour Government prices rose— [Interruption]—wait for it; the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huck-field) has not been hurt yet—by 30 per cent. The basic rate of pay for male


ancillaries was increased during the same period by 33 per cent. So, even in gross terms, the basic pay of male ancillary workers, at which the right hon. Gentleman righteously pointed the finger, only just kept pace with prices. But in net terms the male and female ancillary workers did very badly under Labour because in their six years taxation rose and the tax threshold fell. If we are talking of the low-paid—to some extent we are—not only did the Labour Government raise taxation and lower the tax threshold—this cannot be denied—but they raised the national insurance contribution for the low-paid. The result was that the ancillary workers finished up a period of six years of Labour rule with less purchasing power than when they began.

Mr. Roland Moyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that under the Labour Government's prices and incomes policy the National Board for prices and incomes indicated how the Health Service workers might raise their pay by another 10 per cent. above the rates that he is quoting? What will this Government's prices and incomes policy do for them?

Sir K. Joseph: Neither my Labour Government predecessors nor I can take much pride at the speed with which incentive schemes have been introduced into the service. The schemes are there, but they have not been put into rapid use.
During this Government's period in office—I know that the Opposition are looking forward to the comparison—prices have risen, admittedly in a shorter period —no one on this side of the House is either proud or happy about that—about 23 per cent. while the basic pay rates for male ancillaries, including this £2 now available, have risen by no less than 42 per cent., which is nearly double the increase in prices. So the ancillary workers are very much better off now.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: What is the percentage without the £2?

Sir K. Joseph: The £2 is available for them to draw now.

Mr. William Price: Why is the right hon. Gentleman grinning?

Sir K. Joseph: Because the Opposition chose a subject to make political mileage out of it, not in any sense in the national

interest, and because, after scrupulously telling the House and the country the facts, I am entitled to rub in some political facts, too.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the reason why the hospital ancillary workers are on strike today is to make political mileage or to draw attention to their difficulty in trying to make ends meet out of the inadequate pay that they receive from this Government?

Sir K. Joseph: I am commenting on the credentials of the Opposition to raise this subject, and I am entitled to do so. This is a separate part of my speech from the comment on the dispute, the hospitals, and the unions. I was giving the House the picture that, in gross terms, the basic pay rate of male ancillary workers, which is nothing to do with earnings, has risen during our years in office nearly double, but not quite, that of prices.
When it comes to net spending power —and the House should remember that under Labour direct taxation went up, the tax threshold was lowered, which meant that poorer people came into direct taxation, and the flat rate national insurance contribution rose remorselessly every time there was an uprating—it should be realised that over the last two and a half years direct taxes have been lowered, the tax threshold in real terms has been raised and the national insurance contribution has been held meticulously to the same figure, or even lowered for the lower-paid. I am therefore entitled to say that whatever the strong feelings on the subject—and I do not doubt them —the fact is that ancillary workers have done better under the Conservative Government than they did under Labour.

Mr. John Silkin: Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain why, in this Conservative Utopia about which he has been talking, ancillary workers are on strike, although they did not go on strike when the Labour Government were in power.

Sir K. Joseph: I think that there were some grave disappointments at the time of the operation of the standstill. I do not deny for a moment the strong feelings of the ancillary workers, or of some of them. I do not deny that they are essential to the National Health Service.


I do not deny that they have been disappointed. I do deny that their case is helped one jot by the humbug of the Opposition.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: It was a great pity that the Secretary of State sought to introduce a rather unnecessary note and to play party politics by quoting statistics and referring rather misleadingly to tax thresholds and that sort of thing. What the right hon. Gentleman should realise is that we are not here to quote statistics which can mean many things. We are here to talk about the real feelings which motivate hospital ancillary workers, and it is relevant that the militancy and anger which they are now exhibiting was never shown during the time of the Labour Government.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the unions concerned were conducting themselves extremely responsibly. One welcomes that rather grudging concession. The right hon. Gentleman was also right to say that there were some risks if the advice of the national trade unions was not followed, but there is a real long-term risk if the hospital workers' case is not given more favourable consideration than it has received so far. The risk can be seen by drawing a parallel with what happened in the 'fifties when there was a real wage drift for the hospital workers and people engaged in local authority employment generally. In many areas the effect of that was muted by the influx of Commonwealth citizens. Had there not been that influx in the 'fifties and early 'sixties the hospital service would probably have been very badly placed indeed.
If there is a wage drift for hospital workers, and if the Government's economic plans are fulfilled and there is a 5 per cent. growth and that sort of thing, there is likely to be a further move away from employment in the public sector, in the hospitals and elsewhere. If that happens, the risk to the National Health Service will be considerable because it may be difficult to employ an adequate number of people or it may be necessary to insist upon an excessive amount of overtime being worked by those who are employed in the service.
A great deal is said about the hospital workers creating a risk in the short term,

but not enough attention is given to these real long-term risks, of which the workers are acutely aware. They are concerned not merely with their personal standards. They are concerned about the continuing high quality of service which should be available in our hospitals. They are not suggesting that there should be rampant flexibility, although that seems to be preferable to many aspects of current policy. They are suggesting that there is a case for flexibility, for discrimination on behalf of justice in order to allow the lower-paid workers in our hospitals a reasonable standard of living at a time when food prices, for example, are rising rather more rapidly and sharply than the Secretary of State's figures suggest. They believe that they have a strong case. They believe it is wrong that people should have to work a considerable amount of overtime in order to earn only two-thirds of the national average level of earnings.
In Committee on the Counter-Inflation Bill I wanted to speak about the pay of hospital workers. I had with me the details of a number of individuals employed in the service. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me in the debate quoted cases which were more severe and more unpleasant than those which I had taken to the Committee. He quoted from the pay slip of a hospital porter who was takinghome£17 and a few coppers a week, and those few coppers matter a great deal to people such as hospital porters. For a wage of £17 and a few coppers a week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) reminded the House during Questions to the Prime Minister yesterday, a man may have to perform many extremely unenviable tasks. The work of hospital porters is so difficult and unpleasant that we ought not to reward them with the princely sum of £17 even if it is accompanied by a few extra coppers.
I felt it important to take part in this debate because I have an interest, and in view of the exchanges following the statement on the Farm Price Review I had better declare it. I am a member of the National Union of Public Employees.
One regrets the tone of anger and the mood of militancy being experienced in many parts of Britain today, but one can understand it, and it seems to me that it would be wise in the long-term interests of society, and certainly in the long-term


interests of the hospital service, that the Government should concede that the hospital workers' case is an extremely just one and that every consideration should be given to it so that they can live decently and have some leisure. At present they cannot live decently and have any real leisure because, in order to exist, the number of hours of overtime which they have to work is so considerable that they are deprived of the normal opportunities for leisure activities. The Government should consider their case in order to give them the opportunity to live decently and to have adequate leisure, and allow a note of sanity and reason to be re-introduced into this important part of the public sector.
If the Government are not prepared to concede that this is a special case, the result will be militancy and anger. They will add to the real despair which hospital workers are currently experiencing. I hope that the Government will see that there is reason in the case being presented by the hospital workers and that it will make the necessary concessions at an early date.

4.58 p.m.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I support the clear and fair statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made about an issue which saddens many of us who have been associated with the hospital service.
I should like first to say something about the trend of Opposition speeches during the last few weeks. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have poured out millions of words, in this House and outside it, against inflation. They know full well, as we do, that steps to cure this disease always hurt but that if we fail everyone will suffer, most of all the lower paid.
Knowing and condemning, as they do, the virulence of this infection of inflation, are not Opposition Members playing skittles with the House by picking out one industry after another as though they were ninepins and claiming at various periods that each and every one is an exceptional case, with the sole aim of trying to break our fight against inflation? They seek to stultify the Government's determined effort to break inflation. At least some of the unions are more open in their utterances and their propaganda, since they are claiming that the prime

aim is to get the Government out. They are prepared, in the words of one circular that I have received, to use "all and every means" to do it—even, in this case, by condemning many of those who are sick to wait for the care they need.
I join my right hon. Friend in a tribute to those hospital workers—and there are many of them, within and without the union—who have not gone on strike and who have put the needs of the patient first. The Press, radio and television have concentrated on the breakdowns. The hospitals which have maintained services—and they are many—are frightened to say so lest militants arrive and force their loyal workers out—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Nonsense.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: It is no nonsense. I have carefully checked the statements that I am making.

Mr. Heffer: Rubbish.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: Hundreds of hospitals are operating with an adequate, but not a full, service; they are being maintained by the devoted work of people many of whom have flatly refused to join any strike action. By keeping silent because they want to continue the full services to the patient, they are achieving those services but they are also allowing others to inflate the support which is being claimed for the strike.
Some of the tactics which are used endanger health and threaten those least able to bear it—the sick and the maimed. I join my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) in their tribute to doctors and nurses who are working far beyond the call of duty, or perhaps with that higher sense of duty and dedication which believes that the patient comes first.
There is feeling equally as strong as that voiced by Labour hon. Members on behalf of the unions on the part of many voluntary workers who habitually aid their hospitals by regular attendances every week. Many of them are hopping mad at the union checking their hours and activities. Even when relatives arrive, anxious to help their kith and kin who are in hospital, they are told to "buzz off".
One wonders what liberty of the subject means. It seems to mean liberty for the striker and obedience for the rest of society. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, or possibly, through him, the Attorney-General, by what legal right pickets stop and question voluntary workers. By what legal right do their leaders prowl the hospitals to question volunteers? As one volunteer said of a roving watcher, "That damned man's been sitting here guzzling our tea for three hours, waiting to pounce and make trouble". This was a picket in a voluntarily manned out-patients' tea bar.
My right hon. Friend has leaned over backwards to be conciliatory in this matter. As we all know, he has discouraged new volunteers from going in to help the hospitals. He has discouraged many thousands of people who would willingly have given their services. He has done this to keep the union's temperature down. All I can tell him is that the public's temperature is rapidly rising.
With regard to the claim itself, no one today has mentioned that it represents £100 million and would increase the wages bill by 41 per cent. Can anybody say that the acceptance of a claim for a 41 per cent. rise would not make utter nonsense of the Government's intention to halt inflation and of the whole structure of the pay and prices procedure? This is probably the biggest claim on record. To hon. Members opposite, this 41 per cent. is apparently not inflationary—

Mr. John Mendelson: When did the right hon. Lady last live on £21 a week?

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: When I was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: For how many hours?

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: Inevitably, this claim would be followed by nurses and doctors claiming that, despite all their skills and often longer hours, they were getting less than the porters, stokers and cooks—as in some cases is the fact. It would inevitably be followed by rival claims by some who have not done as well in the wage spiral as others. It would be followed by teachers, by

railwaymen and by civil servants, ail of whom would point to this 41 per cent.
The offer made by my right hon. Friend constitutes an 11 per cent. rise, much higher than Opposition Members, now so full of righteous indignation, ever found it possible to give during their time in office. The offer is available at once and afterwards negotiations could iron out the anomalies of the lower-paid in preparation for phase 3.
One thing which is lamentable is that it has become the custom for strikers, in whatever industry they may be, to refer to the basic pay of the lowest grade as if it applied to them all. Along with millions of viewers, I heard a representative of the hospital workers repeatedly refer to the £l8 a week of hospital workers, when 27·8 per cent. earn over £35 per week—[An HON. MEMBER: "How many?"]—and 54 per cent. earn between £22 and £35. Only 4·3 per cent. earn under £19—a very different picture from that presented by the mass media.
My right hon. Friend has very fairly stated the average earnings, and these could immediately be augmented by the £2 for men and £1·80, with an additional 80p in October for women. An 11 per cent. rise, at a time when every right-thinking person is trying to halt inflation, is a reasonable offer which should be accepted.
Over the years, particularly when I was at the Ministry of Health, I have been privileged to visit over 300 hospitals. I have been proud to give the staff the credit which was their due for their skill, their kindness and their consideration for the patient. To refuse an 11 per cent. rise and to claim a 41 per cent. rise is in my view unrealistic and unjustifiable. To use it as a weapon against the most susceptible group of society—the sick— is to renounce the high ideals of putting the patient first.
We all deplore the limitations imposed on these vital services by a minority— I still insist that it is a minority—seeking to wreck the Government's effort to halt inflation, an aim which is in the interests of everyone. I am sorry for the larger number of workers who are sick at heart at not being allowed to render a full and proper service, as they normally and willingly do, to the patients.
I join my right hon. Friend in hoping that hospital staff will accept the current offer and bring this sorry episode to an end. I join him in rejecting the Opposition's case.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crossman: I shall not detain the House for long. I wish to reply to the Secretary of State.
Before that, however, I have something to say to the right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith). One may just say, "Oh, it is militants", and in a way I wish that that were true. But the really serious thing about the present situation is that the unions dealing with this are not militant unions, nor is it militant minorities of those unions. The serious situation is that people who never dreamed of striking, who never conceived of it two or three years ago—and this is why, in a sense, we were lucky to have it out —have now been driven by desperation to take to methods which were profoundly repugnant to them. In a way, this makes them more bloody-minded than if they had been professional militants.
It is a very much more serious situation than anything which the right hon. Lady cares to say. I wish that she could accept that it is too easy to say that this is just some secret conspiracy, with militants coming in and organising it. It is not like that at all. It is people who have had these difficulties for too long. They are in the public sector and know what has happened to the public sector. They look back to the 1930s when they were protected people and took desperately low wages because they were not unemployed. They got into the habit of low wages and got deeply committed to low wages. They have watched it happen since then, and they cannot take it any more.
I greatly respect the Secretary of State. We can all have long talks about credentials. This is the kind of repartee of which the country is absolutely sick. However, as the right hon. Gentleman likes it, I put one question to him. What credential has he to insist on absolute obedience to a statutory wages policy? He is the most ideological of all Tories. He taught the wickedness of

the statutory wages policy. He fought the last General Election on it. He made solemn promises that, whatever happened under the Tories, there would not be one. What credentials has he to lecture the country on the absolute necessity for absolute obedience to an absolute statutory incomes policy? What impertinence.
We can cancel out various kinds of argument. On television we are required to make fools of ourselves in public. But why should we make fools of ourselves in the House of Commons when we are discussing a serious problem? I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman cancels out the arguments from his future speeches and returns to his old style, which was better worded, and which I liked more.
Having said that, we can all be a little more honest. The right hon. Gentleman has repudiated all his principles. He has learned from experience, he came in with complete laissez-faire. He said "I can handle the whole damned thing without Government intervention. We can handle it without that." Now he is intervening more than any other Minister. He has learned the necessity for intervention.
The Labour Party has made mistakes. We have intervened. We had a statutory prices policy. I have become opposed to a statutory wages policy by what I have learned. I learned the lessons which the Tories are now learning. We introduced this thing and tried to make it work. We discovered that if one has it, one has to have rigidity. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that to make a statutory policy work, even for a short time, Ministers have to be totally rigid, totally irrational—and stimulate the very militancy and extremism which the policy is designed to suppress.
The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was on one point. He said " If I make one exception, the flood will come." Let me tell him from personal experience that in 1970 I was placed in his position. I had a very powerful persuasive and charming Minister in charge of labour who had a 3½ per cent. norm. I had a nurses' wage claim of 35 per cent. or 40 per cent.—about the same as the right hon. Member for Chislehurst thinks is the size of the claim we are discussing. I wondered whether to bring


it down to 3½ per cent. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) wanted me to do. She insisted that it was absolutely essential, otherwise the whole policy would break down. I settled for 23½ per cent., and I staved off a nurses' strike.
Will the right hon. Gentleman treat the nurses this way, saying "I must treat you exactly like the ancillary workers because there can be no exception", or will he do a little cheating and wriggling and give the nurses more than the ancillary workers by some trick, perhaps with pensions, or with something else? I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not be so moral about what he does. He has just learned too extremely his abandonment of laissez-faire. He is now intervening in a statutory, totalitarian and militant way. It is a militant conversion. He is suddenly converted to intervention, doing it in an ultra extreme way, such as we all started with.
All that I beg of the right hon. Gentleman is that he be humble and reasonable. He will have to come to concordats with the union. He will have to make concessions. He will have to do that sooner or later.
I was delighted to see in the gas industry sanity and ingenuity coming, ingeniously getting round the confounded norm and paying the same by tricks. If a nationalised industry chairman can do that, the Secretary of State could be ingenious and open minded, finding ways not just of getting out of the difficulty. How tempting it is to have that touch of masochism which the right hon. Gentleman has in his nature, of saying "Because I represent these workers in the Cabinet, I must prove my high-mindedness by repudiating any help to them." We had Ministers like that. They were unbearable prigs. Whatever other vices I have, I do not have that particular one. When I was in a Department, I fought for the Department.
When it comes to the nurses or the ancillary workers, it is the Secretary of State's job to say to the Cabinet "I am sorry, gentlemen, but it makes no sense. I have the nurses' claim coming up and the ancilliary workers' claim. In my health service we cannot have this rigidity. We must be like the gas industry and

find a method of easing our way through. It is no good telling me that on 31st December the matter will be all right, because this summer will be very bad in the hospitals."
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this dispute will not continue just because he has made another speech saying "I am King Canute" he is wrong.

5.17 p.m.

Sir Paul Bryan: The debate so far has centred on the grievances of the hospital workers, many of which are very genuine, and the refusal of the Government to set up an inquiry and to treat them as a special case. The cause of this situation, however, goes much deeper than anything we have yet discussed. I do not apologise for going rather further back than we have done so far in our argument.
In a democracy, by definition, we depend on the will of the people to be able to carry on our institutions. The fact that we have only one policeman per 700 people shows that it is not the law or the police that maintain the law but the fact that most of those 700 people are willing to support it. Our industrial relations, through the voluntary system of bargaining which we have had for many years, have depended on people wanting the system to work, and on both sides behaving in such a way that it had a chance of working. In other words, it involved compromise, give and take, and not using one's strength on either side to its ultimate conclusion.
The background to this debate is the failure of all of us—Government, trade unions, employers and employees—to achieve and sustain conditions necessary for voluntary collective bargaining. That failure is why the Government have been driven to a statutory incomes policy which—here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite—we never meant to attempt.
I say that we failed, but we did not fail by much. When we came to power in June 1970 the rate of rise in incomes was about 16 per cent. By the autumn of 1971 we had got it down to about 7 per cent. That was a considerable achievement. That was by voluntary methods, persuasion, propaganda—by any fair method available. At the same time as wages rose by 7 per cent. the cost of


living rose by only 6 per cent. Up to then, things went well.
I remember that autumn very well, because I was at the Department of Employment when half a dozen wage negotiations came up—in the gas industry, local government, water, hospital ancillary workers, electricity workers, and so on. All those were settled at between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent.
Then came the coal strike. Whatever the merits of that strike and whatever misjudgments were made—certainly the Government made some misjudgments then—there were two results which are pertinent today. First, the scale of the increase which was achieved by that strike blew the voluntary policy sky-high. The only thing which could have saved it from then onwards was co-operation by the trade unions, which is what the Prime Minister and his colleagues tried to obtain in those long talks from July to November.
The second result of that strike was the discrediting of the Wilberforce type inquiry. By "discrediting" I do not imply anything dishonest. I mean discrediting in terms of an anti-inflation policy. There had been many such inquiries—into the docks, the electricity industry, and so on—and all had been conducted by thoroughly competent and honest people, but they had invariably found the individual industry to be a particular case and that particular case worthy of an inflationary settlement.
This is why one essential of a statutory incomes policy is that there must be an end to that sort of inquiry into individual industries. It must be replaced by a Pay Board which will judge each industry not only on its own merits but also on its merits in relation to all industry and in relation to the whole population.
Many people do not appear yet to realise, or do not want to realise, that the Pay Board is taking over. The Opposition certainly realise that it is, but they do not want to pass it on. The Trades Union Congress advocates inquiries the whole time, but it knows full well that the Government cannot concede an inquiry. The TUC knows that to give exceptional treatment to one union would undoubtedly result in a score of other requests.
The next charge which is made is that the Government are inflexible and that they have got themselves into a position in which they cannot manoeuvre and from which they cannot retreat. I think that this is true, but to a certain extent it is by design. A golden rule in industrial relations is for both sides to leave themselves room for manoeuvre and a route of retreat. However, there are exceptions, even to golden rules. This time the Government have rightly left no route of retreat for this short period.
The Opposition should realise that it is wrong to encourage the hospital workers or any other group of workers to believe that the Government will or can retreat. It is absolutely untrue that this policy means that the hospital workers are facing rigidity and lack of consideration. The Secretary of State has described the amount they can have at once. After that, let them be assured that they can go straight to the Pay Board, and their case is bound to get early consideration and, I should have thought, a pretty sympathetic hearing. I ask the hospital workers to have patience, and I wish them luck at the Pay Board.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: As I listened to the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) I could not help reflecting that one of the happiest results of the last General Election was his relegation to the back benches. When I heard him advise the Secretary of State to be humble I could not help recollecting his performance at the Dispatch Box when he was a Minister and when he was anything but humble.

Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not here all that often to have observed it.

Mr. Hooson: I was here more often than the hon. Gentleman.
I disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that the ancillary workers in hospitals had been driven into this tragic strike—tragic for the whole country—by despair. They have been driven to it not by despair but by the success of other militants in achieving what they failed to achieved by reason and negotiation.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), in a very striking phrase, said that exceptional injustices


require exceptional remedies. I hope that I quote the right hon. Gentleman correctly. That was a viewpoint that the Labour Government never accepted. The Labour Government did not accept that there were exceptional remedies for exceptional injustices.
The truth of our present situation is surely this. Many groups of workers and professional people have had very large rises in real earnings over the past few years. Faced with inflation, it has been much easier for any Government, Labour or Conservative, to control the public sector, to put the screws on the public sector.
Collective bargaining makes a good deal of sense in free enterprise, where there are employers and employees at arm's length, as it were, and where the employers do not depend upon the public purse. When the employers depend upon the public purse, as they do in the public sector, it is so easy for any Government—the Labour Government did this every bit as much as the Conservative Government—to put the squeezes on there and control the public sector first. If hon. Members are to bandy records about and simply make it party political, it is fair to point out that the Government have at least as much ammunition to use against the Labour Opposition for what they failed to perform in government as have the Opposition to aim at the Government.
However, that is no answer to the real problem. The real problem surely is that there are millions of people who are suffering exceptional injustice, in the sense that they have been conditioned by the enormous general increase in the country's wealth and other factors to have a growing expectation of enjoying a greater part of it than they have been used to. It is, therefore, natural for them to press for wage increases.
When a Government are driven, as were this Goverment, to adopting a statutory prices and incomes policy very suddenly, involving a complete change-round from their previous policy, many people were bound to believe, and rightly in a sense, that they were suffering a grave injustice. So it happened this time. It happened exactly the same under the Labour Government.
Now it is said that an exception should be made of hospital workers. Goodness knows, they have a first-class case, as the right hon. Member for Deptford proved. Such a case could equally be made for farm workers and for at least 20 other groups of workers. If what are in many ways the perfectly reasonable and legitimate claims of the hospital workers were to be recognised, the effect on the country generally and on inflation would be great.
Therefore we come to what seems to me the kernel of the debate. Of course, the ancillary workers have a good case, as do many other groups of workers. Of course the Government have a good case; but the country has a good case, too. The country's case is that the greatest threat to our civilisation, to our standard of living and to everything else is inflation. I believe in a statutory prices and incomes policy. I believed in it under a Labour Government and I still believe in it. The great trouble with the price policies of the Labour Party and the Tory Party is that they were introduced at short notice to deal with crises, and they were bound to result in causing a burning sense of injustice among many people. At present, it is necessary to increase the earnings of the lower-paid as soon as possible, and, in order to do that and in order to be fair all round, the wages of the top earners have to be pegged. But there are so many groups pressing for increased earnings, for a greater share of the national reward, who are not willing to be held down while the lower-paid get increases. That is the dilemma which faces this country just as it faced us at the time of the Labour Government.
We cannot at present make an exception of any group of workers. The greatest failure of the Government is not in what they are doing now but in what they did in their first two years in power. We are paying for the Tory policy of the last General Election, which was when the Government went wrong, when all the strongly organised groups got their rises. If we see a sense of frustration among the ancillary workers in the hospitals it is because they were weakly organised and were not militant. They were left behind in the queue and by the time they came to assert their claim there was a freeze. They are therefore


feeling a perfectly understandable sense of injustice.
How can it be right for a Government which has now had a complete change of heart, and far too late, to give way to a single group? The Labour Government would not do it [Interruption.] Of course they would not. In fact, they did not.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: How about in 1966?

Mr. Hooson: The right attitude for the House to adopt is to say that none of us can be proud that the ancillary workers are badly paid, none of us can be proud that in our community there are tens of thousands of empty beds, that there are doctors, nurses and many others working under great strain while everyone concedes that the ancillary workers—

Mr. Giles Radice: Mr. Giles Radice (Chester-Le-Street) rose—

Mr. Hooson: I shall give way presently. Everyone concedes that the ancillary workers have a good case; but the real issue is what will happen in phase 3. One great failure of the Government on the present policy is that they have proved themselves to be such bad personnel managers. The people of this country are not so stupid that they do not understand that inflation is a threat to all of us—

Mr. Radice: Mr. Radice rose—

Mr. Hooson: They would be prepared to accept a policy of freeze if they thought it was fair all round and if they thought that ultimately justice would flow from it. In phase 3 the Government should make their position clear, that they intend the lower paid to be brought up first to a proper national minimum level. I am a firm believer that the Government should make a declaration that in phase 3 there will be a national minimum wage covering the whole country. It is on that basis that negotiations should take place.

Mr. Radice: How does the hon. and learned Gentleman justify his present position in view of the Liberal Party's support for the hospital workers during the Chester-le-Street by-election?

Mr. Russell Kerr: That was another branch of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Hooson: I have always believed, and I said so on the platform in Chester-le-Street, that the hospital workers had a good and reasonable case but that there should be no exceptions made. [Interruption.] What the Government need to do and what the House needs to do, unless the Labour Party has become so irresponsible [Interruption.] that it wants to give way and to see every group get increased wages—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order.

Mr. Hooson: The Government must adopt a tough policy, but they should make it clear to the hospital and other lower-paid workers that they will be given top priority in phase 3 and that there will be a basic national minimum wage in this country.

5.37 p.m.

Dr. Anthony Trafford: I do not often find it possible to agree with that particular wing of the Liberal Party's expression of view, but I found a great deal in the analysis of hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) with which I agree. It is obvious that in phase 3 the Pay Board will face many difficulties, particularly on the question of bringing up the earnings of the lower paid while holding back the remuneration of the higher paid.
In phase 2 of the policy as put forward by the Government there is a move in this direction which, to say the least, is helpful and beneficial, particularly to the lower paid. I listened with great interest to some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), and I agree that one of the virtues of his being on the back benches in Opposition is that we are getting the most entertaining confessions and revelations. When he urged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bend this way, to give a little here, to dodge that, and to stab one of his colleague's policies in the back, which apparently the right hon. Gentleman did and which he confessed today, we can see some explanation why his Government's policy collapsed. This is an object lesson for my right hon. Friend—not that he should try to follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman, but that he should steer clear of that


example and pay no attention to the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
It seemed that the Opposition case was that there should be an inquiry now without specifically stating what this inquiry was to do. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) mentioned the question of pay, presumably because he thought the result would be speedy. But there is no evidence to suggest that such an inquiry could be any speedier or that its findings could be implemented any quicker than if it had been handled by the Pay Board, provided that it is dealing with the question of pay.
Had the right hon. Gentleman said— he did not—that the Opposition wanted to go far wider and look into the whole question of pay for those who are working in fields of social importance rather than of economic power, I would agree that that is a fundamental question that will have to be faced sooner or later and for which we shall need to find some solution. It will not be solved by an inquiry into pay. I agree with the comment made in, I believe, The Economist, which said that if there was one economic disaster greater than Wilberforce Mark I it was Wilberforce Mark II. Any inquiry set up under these circumstances would result in a wage claim for all those with whom the hospital ancillary workers are usually equated. It would have the effect that it would concentrate on the pay and it would be sidetracked from the much more fundamental question of how to reward people in some sectors where their pure economic productivity cannot be easily assessed.
The other feature which disturbed me in the debate, and on which I do not intend to go into detail, is what I call the competitive sob stuff. On the one hand we have, apparently, patients dying left, right and centre while on the other hand, workers are starving by the hundreds of thousands. We all know that neither of these statements is true although there may be isolated instances of a certain number of patients suffering. I am not aware of the details of such cases. I do not believe that it is happening on a wide scale. Where there have been difficulties there has been every endeavour to operate emergency services. I do not believe that the hospital ancillary workers are suffering or will suffer, as I heard

the other day, from malnutrition. This is a load of rot. We may just fall into the trap of competitive sob stuff.
The trouble is that it devalues the argument because exactly the same argument can be put forward for many other groups of workers—certainly for agricultural workers and possibly with more justification. This type of nonsense is not helpful to hospital ancillary workers or to anyone else.
The thing that saddens me most about this dispute is that I cannot help feeling that the hospital workers are being had for mugs. They are being had for mugs not by my right hon. Friend, not by the hospital authorities or their co-workers in the National Health Service. They are being had for mugs because they are being pushed out, as a poorly organised group, into the front line of a battle and are being used as cats' paws. I feel sad about this dispute.
Further than that, I am distressed to see that this is an action which the Opposition support, as they support every industrial dispute that comes up. There is no need to discuss the dispute on its merits before they come in their serried ranks to say "It is good because it is a dispute and, therefore, we support it." This helps no one and devalues the argument when a dispute of some merit and importance comes before the House. The value of the Opposition's argument about this important dispute is inevitably weakened by the fact that they produce the same comment on every dispute that comes along.
Opposition speakers often will stand up and say this. For this reason I am sad that these workers are being used as cats' paws in what is and must be a futile exercise. They know, the Opposition know and we know that if the counter-inflation policies are to be successful there cannot be a surrender directly or by means of some inflationary inquiry.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I want during the course of my speech to deal with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford.
First, I want to say how appalled I am by the reaction of the Secretary of State


to the reasoned case put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford (Mr. John Silkin). We know that there are about 380 hospitals affected. Where is the Minister's sense of urgency? We know that there are 30,000 empty beds. Where is the Minister's sense of urgency? We know that he is facing a crisis throughout the country, yet we have had no indication from him that the responsibility rests entirely in his lap. He is completely responsible for the whole of the National Health Service.
We had a vague generalisation on economic policies, followed by a little bit of political knockabout dealing with what "we" did or "they" did. What the country needs in these days of difficulty is for the right hon. Gentleman—and no one doubts his ability—to rise to this occasion and give a lead, showing how the Government should cope with this situation.
This debate is about injustice to a hard-pressed section of workers. It is about inflexibility and hypocrisy on the part of the Government. They continually talk about economic policies being carried out to help low-paid workers. They talk generalities until they get to a particular case. Then it is not that particular section of low-paid workers whom they want to help but someone else.
I do not need to go very far for my evidence. I am sure that every hon. Member can put forward the same kind of figures and arguments as I do from my own constituency. In my local newspaper, the Willesden Chronicle, last week there was an advertisement which said:
The National Hospital at Maida Vale is looking for a reliable and friendly man for duties in the Front Hall Reception. The basic rate of pay for this position is £20·96 for a 40-hour week. He will be required to work 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. … Age up to 45.
This is the kind of figure which my right hon. Friend gave from the Front Bench and it runs throughout the country. My local hospital group is the Central Middlesex Group, which I claim to be one of the finest in the country. I checked up last week and found that of the adult male ancillary workers there, 30 take home less than £20 a week. This makes nonsense of the average figures.
The Secretary of State quotes higher averages but he does not say that the average time worked in my hospital for

ancillary workers taking home more than £21·48 is 54 hours, including weekends. There is an injustice to middle-range workers, and that is one of the anomalies that have not been touched upon. Consider the higher-grade workers in central stores, storekeepers and storemen. They receive no overtime and are taking home less than a porter who has done 54 to 60 hours a week.
Where is the Secretary of State's managerial obsession which he is showing with the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill? In one of my hospitals a head porter with managerial responsibility for 60 men, responsible for arranging their duties, for their discipline and the complete organisation of the hospital staff, has a basic pay of £28 a week. What other person managing 60 workers get this rate? What kind of people are we talking about? Again I quote from the Willesden Chronicle. A letter appeared in that paper headed:
Thanks to Neasden Hospital.
It said:
I feel I must write to you about Neasden Hospital (D Ward) so that your readers will really know all about this wonderful hospital and their dedicated staff.
My dear wife was a patient there for nearly eleven months and passed away last Thursday… May I through your columns thank all the sisters and nurses (both day and night), both past and present, the kitchen staff and cleaners, etc., all of whom as I say extended every help and courtesy. What a wonderful group of people. I shall never forget them and offer them my heartfelt thanks.
That kind of letter could be found in countless local newspapers. Anyone who has been in hospital will have had experience of the devotion of hospital workers of all grades.
These are the people whom the Government seek to make a buffer for their counter-inflation policy. The Undersecretary admits bad luck in timing their pay claim, but whose bad luck was it? When the local government workers got through on the last day before the freeze they received a certain amount of support from their Minister. When the Whitley Council began to discuss ancillary workers it was told by the Secretary of State's Department to hold on. It held on for too long, with the result that, although the local government workers got their increase, the hospital workers did not. It was the Government who prevented an


early settlement which would have given more money to the hospital workers.
If we look at the history of Whitley it will be seen that the ancillary workers in 1957 were the first ever to have their Whitley Council agreement broken because of a freeze. It seems, going through the history of all freezes under all Governments since then, that it is those who are serving the community, who have no bargaining power because they do not produce goods and articles, who always get clobbered first and most severely. Contrast the treatment of these workers with that of the doctors. During the General Election, when my Government were trying to hold down inflation, the then Opposition came out in favour of giving increases to consultants with "A" merit awards, and when they got in they did this. It amounted to £60 a week in extra money. This was a rise equal to the take-home pay of three ancillary workers in the Central Middlesex Hospital.
During the 1966 pay freeze my Government gave a special cushion to general practitioners. Doctors who found themselves caught in the squeeze in July did not have to wait until the following August for their award. It was paid to them on 1st October. If it is good enough for the doctors it is good enough for hospital cleaners and porters, for all of those giving service in our hospitals.
It is not good enough to patch this up and refer it to the Pay Board. We have had Report No. 64 on ancillary workers produced by the Prices and Incomes Board. There has also been the Board's report on nurses' pay. We all know that we are running the finest health service in the world through the devotion of people who are still imbued with the Florence Nightingale ideal. We are "short-changing" them in pay and conditions the whole time.
It is the height of nonsense to expect hospital ancillary workers on less than £20 a week to take the brunt of the Government's inflationary problems whilst those with unearned incomes have a tax bonanza and property racketeers become millionaires. It is a travesty of social justice when these devoted workers are pilloried by the Press and television as endangering lives when for a quarter of a century on poverty-stricken wages their

care of the sick has been a monument to their humanity.
I ask for an inquiry to do two things. First, there should be an immediate, urgent look at the situation to deal with the interim problem. But, much wider, there should be a complete inquiry of a Royal Commission nature to consider the question of pay and conditions in the hospitals and in the health services, not only for ancillary workers, but for the nurses—who are also underpaid and who have a claim in the pipeline—physiotherapists, radiographers and all those in the professions supplementary to medicine who are working at rates which, after training, are ridiculous compared with those paid elsewhere.
We want not only an immediate inquiry which will give justice to the ancillary workers but a much larger-scale inquiry which will provide a sensible structure in the hospital service for those people who render the service which the sick need. We should have a full and radical overall examination of the system which results in justice for these people in respect not only of pay and conditions but of their functions and the way in which the service should be run, because without them the National Health Service would collapse.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I had not intended to take part in the debate, which I felt might do more harm than good, until last night when I saw the following headline in the Evening Standard:
Pickets block food to 1,300 Epsom patients".
The text reads:
Pickets at Longrove Hospital, Epsom, today prevented the delivery of essential food supplies. Ten lorries carrying provisions for patients and staff were turned away by striking members of the Transport and General Workers Union. A spokesman for the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board said later, 'We have had pickets stop food lorries before, but never on this scale.' The T &amp; GWU workers are in the second day of their strike and members of two other unions are meeting today to decide on whether they should support them. The hospital has between 1,200 and 1,300 mentally ill patients, and staff from its industrial therapy unit have been preparing meals since the strike began. The pickets are only allowing essential medical supplies to enter the hospital gates.


What a condemnation that is of some aspects of present-day trade union practice. How far it has drifted from the original ideals either of the trade unions or of the Labour Party when we find that food is forcibly stopped from reaching patients! In other words, politics before the patients.
In my view, that act alone justifies this debate. It not only illustrates the ruthlessness and callousness of some trade union leaders but also, alas, demonstrates how dangerously close this country is to anarchy and mob rule.
I believe that the Secretary of State will have to act very quickly to instruct hospital authorities to make the necessary arrangements for the food to get through. If food is stopped by pickets, I hope that he will ask the Home Secretary to draft immediately sufficient police to the hospitals concerned to immobilise the pickets and allow the free entry of food and other vital supplies, otherwise patients and others will be entitled to ask "Who is supposed to be running this country?" The sooner these illegal pickets—for illegal I am sure they must be—feel the firm hand of the law the better. We endeavoured last Friday to discuss some aspects of picketing, which is crucial, in my view, in the present dispute, but were prevented from doing so by a filibuster by an hon. Member opposite. Now, fortunately, we have the time to raise the matter.
There is a second point which has not been fully brought out. There are tens of thousands of women waiting for a word from the Government to go into the hospitals and give their services freely. They are being stopped by picketing, which is quite monstrous. If those splendid women were allowed to go into the hospitals, they would support those paid workers who are still nobly at work —and the vast majority of them are— and at the same time would shame the remainder into going back to their duties.
We have heard a great deal from the Opposition about justice in wages and salaries. Much of this talk can be dangerous and can lead on to sterile ground. It makes everyone discontented without necessarily supplying a remedy. The word "justice" sometimes means equality —and, alas, equality is impossible in a free society; one can have it only in a

totalitarian State—and sometimes it is just another word for envy or greed. I deprecate hon. Members opposite trying to stir up out-of-date, old-fashioned envy and class hatred in this debate. How can they possibly expect the Government to give way and make an exception in this one particular case?
I hope that the Opposition's case will be soundly defeated and that a small minority of workers involved will show some common sense and return to their duties.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Dick Taverne: It naturally gives me some pleasure to be back. The circumstances of my return are somewhat different from those in which I made my maiden speech when I was previously elected in a by-election, but in politics, as in nature, it is impossible to be a maiden twice. What I intend to say would not be appropriate to a maiden speech because, I suspect, it may seem controversial to some. I wish to make three brief points. First, I support what has been said by some hon. Members on this side of the House, that the hospital ancillary workers have a good case. Secondly, the Government have themselves to blame to a considerable extent for the situation in which they find themselves; they have not learned from their past mistakes. Thirdly, this strike is profoundly and tragically mistaken and should not be successful.
The first part of the case was eloquently made by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). There is no need for me to repeat it, except to say that insufficient credit for the strength of the case was given by some hon. Members who spoke from the Government back benches. It should be remembered that the leaders of the unions are highly responsible men who have not in the past been driven to militancy, who have been most unfortunately affected by the timing and who have to some extent been affected by the competition in militancy. They deserve sympathy in all except their present action.
My second point concerns the Government's record. They are right to introduce an incomes policy. In present circumstances it is necessary for them to introduce a statutory incomes policy,


although even now in several respects it is not supported by the right strategy for social justice. But the Government's delayed conversion to this policy has infinitely worsened the problem.
I do not speak simply with the benefit of hindsight. I made speeches in this House, when I was a Front Bench speaker for the Opposition, at the end of 1970 and in the early part of 1971 in which I urged the Government to adopt an incomes policy and warned them that the postponement of the adoption of an incomes policy would make the problem worse and leave a very heavy price to be paid at the end. Instead, the Government went for the mistaken policy of N—1; they went for confrontation in the public sector only. They should learn their lessons from this.
To be successful, the aim of a statutory incomes policy must be to lessen the differentials which obtain throughout the wage and salary structure. Phase 2 of the present policy is an improvement on the previous model which the Labour Government put forward, because the emphasis is less on percentages and, therefore, to some extent more on redressing the differentials. But the Government must realise that for two-and-a-half years they have set about widening differentials. They have preached creative inequality, and they are now reaping the whirlwind of their past mistakes.
Thirdly, I come to the present strikes. I suggest that those hon. Members who are concerned with a fairer structure for wages must condemn the hospital workers' strike unequivocally. It would be unfortunate if it succeeded because it would remove the hope of a fairer structure. If there were a Labour Government tomorrow—and despite what the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) so eloquently said, there would be no question about it—that Labour Government would have to impose in present circumstances a statutory incomes policy every bit as stringent as that which is now being imposed. The Labour Government would be forced to resist this strike and other strikes which are designed to break that policy. That is what the previous Labour Government did, and that is what a future Labour Government would do. There is no doubt about it.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: That is why we lost the election.

Mr. Taverne: I do not take too much notice of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). He has a new slogan, which is that the Labour Party should be less honest in politics. What I have said is a fact which all hon. Members on the Opposition side should face and which many of them realise. It is a fact that only some have dared to stats publicly. Others have been more concerned to pretend to agree, when in fact they disagree, in order to preserve a unity which does not exist. Hon. Members should look at what is happening outside the party, and people's reactions to the party. At a time when the Labour Party should be gaining strength, it is not gaining in strength but is losing in strength. Why?—because it has lost a certain credibility, and it has lost it because it is well realised by the public that the party in Opposition is condemning what, if it were in power, it would have to do. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) keeps interrupting. There is no point in his continuing to interrupt. He will not intimidate me as he intimidated certain pensioners in my constituency when he forced them to take down window bills by threatening to evict them from their council houses.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) state precisely when that incident took place and the pensioners involved? I never went to a council estate in Lincoln on polling day.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House cannot re-fight the by-election now.

Mr. Taverne: The activities of the hon. Member for Bolsover in Lincoln were noted.

Mr. John Mendelson: Let us address ourselves to the debate.

Mr. Taverne: Quite. If there are interruptions to be made, they should be made in the course of the argument and not from a sitting position.
I have two observations to make about the hospital strike. The first is so obvious that it is surprising that it has not been made more frequently and more clearly. When strikes were such a vital weapon to the trade union movement and to trade


unionists in raising their standards of living, they were used as a method of hitting at employers by hitting at the profit made by those employers. That is not the case in the strikes which have been taking place recently. On this occasion the strikes are against the Government. They are not directly affecting the Government but are indirectly affecting the Government through the public. What influence can patients have on the wages of hospital ancillary workers? What influence can children have on the wages of the teachers who are complaining about the London allowance? What effect can passengers have on the wages of the engine drivers who are inconveniencing them?
The strike weapon has changed. The only weapon which the public have is their vote. If the Labour Party is not careful the public will use that vote at elections in a manner that is not entirely favourable to the Labour Party.
The people who are challenging Government policy, the low paid, are low paid because they have often refrained from using the bargaining power that they might have had in the past. In the past there has been a free-for-all in wage bargaining. Those who felt able to use their bargaining power used it, and a free-for-all could only increase differentials. A free-for-all leads to the situation where the low paid are low paid.
If the strike were to succeed, if the Government were to give in, if the incomes policy to which at last belatedly they have become converted were now to be abandoned, the people who would suffer would be the low-paid workers. In the long run they are mistaken to challenge this policy. If we want a fairer wage structure, radical policies and greater social justice, the beginning must be some form of incomes policy, and the Government's income policy is the only one there is at the moment.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: It is not normal to refer to the return of an hon. Member to the House, but it is not out of place for me to say that the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) has brought a breath of fresh air to democracy. This has been said of his return not only by my hon. Friends, but much more widely

throughout the country and the world. To do what he did needed courage and intellectual integrity. He has shown equal courage and intellectual integrity in telling the Opposition that they should condemn this strike because it is not in the interests of low-paid workers or hospital ancillary workers.
Many tributes have been paid to the various branches of medicine—doctors, nurses and voluntary workers—as to how they have managed to come to terms with the strike and to keep the hospitals going. It is not my intention to add to those tributes, but I wish to pay an equal tribute to the hospital ancillary workers whose sense of responsibility and dedication to their patients has meant that they put patients before themselves and are staying at work in great numbers. In the West Country very few hospital ancillary workers have left their posts, and that certainly applies to my constituency. They are working in hospitals many of which are antique, nineteenth-century buildings, where the conditions are old-fashioned and perhaps even unpleasant. I do not believe that the argument that the Government are standing firm will drive hospital workers away to other work. Most of them have a dedication to their work and want to continue it, because they want to help the sick, the elderly and the maimed.
No one will deny that hospital workers were disappointed by not getting their rise last autumn, and, indeed, that they did not receive their rise at the same time as did local government workers. Their work is sometimes unpleasant, it involves long hours and it means that they are often called out in emergencies, and so on. Nobody should under-estimate the need for a high state of morals and cheerfulness among these workers. It is extremely important that they, together with doctors and nurses and all those who care for patients should keep up such a high state of morale and cheerfulness. Nobody will deny that they have a right to protest. They have made their protest, and it has not fallen on deaf ears. People all over the country realise that those workers are badly paid, and would like to see them paid more. But the logic of the situation today is that the free collective bargaining system of the past 20 years has not helped them at all. It has kept them at the bottom of the ladder and


in a position in which they are finding it difficult to make ends meet.
This has been the result of the system that has operated for 20 years. These people now want to see a change, they want a new policy brought in to give them more of a chance, and a better deal. The only logical conclusion must be that they want to see the Government stand firm in their battle against inflation. The Government have not always stood firm in that battle, but they are certainly doing so now.
In many aspects of life and work it is often said that on occasion one must be cruel to be kind. One certainly has to be firm to be fair in the long run. I believe that the fact that the Government are being firm in the long run will be seen to be fair. There may be anomalies in the short term, but in the long term such a policy will be seen to be fair to the low-paid workers and, in particular, to the hospital ancillary workers. They have more to gain than anyone in the success of such a policy. The message which I should like to give to hospital ancillary workers is that they should go back to work and should see that a proper case is put to the Pay Board. There has been a call for a full inquiry into the situation of nurses and lower-paid hospital and health service workers but the Pay Board is to consider the situation in relation to the rates of pay in other branches of activity. We should be thinking about such a wide inquiry rather than an immediate inquiry into their particular case—an inquiry which might give these workers a rise and put them for a short time farther up the ladder, only to lose their position again later. Their case must be looked at by the Pay Board in the whole context of the wage structure in the country. Logic points to the fact that those workers should now take the view, "We have made our protest, we shall go back to work and put our case to the Pay Board. We shall expect the board to produce a fair result and we hope that the Government will produce a fair answer to the report when the time comes."

6.16 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I do not want to take up time by referring to the speeches made by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen)

and the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne)—except to say that the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln did not put before the House any particularly novel ideas. He is being less than genuine in his own intentions in this respect if he thinks that merely by reiterating half-digested thoughts, he will make a tremendous impression on Opposition Members.
I would take more kindly to Conservative Members who smugly suggest that the patient comes first if they did not demand that in so doing the ancillary workers in the health service should be subjected to perpetual exploitation. It comes ill for some people to say that the captains of industry need incentives and are not expected to put the country first, while the man earning less than £18 per week is expected to put the patient first.
We are at present in the throes of a strike or a series of stoppages of various kinds by people who, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) said, are not usually militant or given to exaggerated behaviour but who take seriously their obligations and duties to their patients. Those workers cannot go on being exploited by the nation. They estimate that even to reach their pay level of 1970, when their standards were already poor and depressed, they would now need an increase of £4 in their earnings.
I should like to give the House some idea of the gigantic problem arising from the way in which hospital ancillary workers are being exploited. There are about 2,760 hospitals in the country, most of them possessing between 50 and 500 beds. The total number of hospital beds is well over 500,000. If we bear in mind that for most people the average stay in hospital is from 14 to 21 days, we get some idea of the numbers of people who go into hospital annually. When we add to this total the number of outpatient attendances for last year—about 43 million—we can see the responsibility which falls upon the ancillary hospital workers. One authority recently said of these workers:
They are the backroom boys of the hospital services. They are the supporting cast without whom the front-line team could not operate.
The total number of ancillary workers in the National Health Service is 270,000.


The number of hospital doctors is around 28,000 and family doctors amount to about 25,000. We see, therefore, that the total medical strength in the National Health Service is 53,000. Hospital mid-wives number about 20,000, and hospital nurses about 330,000. The point is that of the total of 800,000 employees in the National Health Service about one-third are the ancillary staffs.
The composition of the ancillary staffs is also interesting. About 28,000 are employed on works and maintenance, about 16,000 doing laundry work, about 6,000 attending to farms, gardens and ground maintenance, about 45,000 in catering, another 20,000 are ward orderlies, about 125,000 do domestic duties—that number includes porters—and about 30,000 do other jobs. They make up a total of 270,000.
A number of wage figures have been bandied around. However, when one considers wages it is easy to make calculations from the Department's own Summary of Health and Personal Social Services statistics. I have calculated that the average earnings—not wages—of hospital ancillary workers last year was less than £25 a week. The right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) said that to give the hospital workers the increase that they need would cost the health service £100 million. Last year the nation spent almost £2,400 million on the National Health Service, about 50 per cent. of which was spent on the hospital service. It is interesting to note that the medical and dental professions—and there are only about 900 dentists in the hospital service —took £130 million, whereas the 270,000 ancillary workers got £350 million. In other words, 28,000 doctors shared £130 million and 270,000 ancillary workers, almost 10 times as many, shared £350 million.
Four out of every five ancillary workers are on a basic wage rate of less than £20 for a 40-hour week, and many, as the Secretary of State himself admitted, are on the minimum rate of £17·68 for a man and £15·58 for a woman.
There is another problem. Many of these ancillary workers come from overseas. Their work permits often tie them to specific hospitals. Thus hospital

administrations have enormous power over them because if they leave the hospital service for any reason they may also lose their rights to remain in this country.
Hospital ancillary workers are on the lowest rung of the hospital hierarchy. They provide the basic services which make the treatment of all patients possible. Without them it would not be possible for all the others to do their jobs. It seems to us that they have a just case. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel that it is the duty of the Secretary of State in this respect to face up to his responsibilities to the National Health Service and to the public.
The Secretary of State must not be inflexible. He tends to be too rigid in his attitude. I was disappointed with much of his speech today. It was unworthy of the usual calmness, perspicacity and dedication to the job which, in his own way, he accomplishes very ably. He will eventually have to negotiate. Let him do it now.

6.25 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There cannot be one person who honestly believes that the pay of ancillary workers in our hospitals is either fair of adequate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will agree with that. Most people will also agree that in order to do our hospital ancillary workers justice their case must be examined fully by an impartial body.
My constituency is what might be termed a hospital centre. I have many hundreds of devoted hospital workers among my constituents. I know from my many visits to hospitals how hard they work and how disagreeable many of their tasks are. I am glad to tell the House that today every hospital in the group is working normally and that at all times they have kept essential services going, even when there was a partial stoppage. Despite this, however, there are 400 beds fewer occupied than normal. Inevitably, this will have a serious effect on the health of people up and down the area.
It was because of the concern of ancillary workers for their patients that on Friday of last week the Lancaster and District Hospital Ancillary Workers'


Strike Committee met and adopted the following resolution:
This Committee recommends the complete return to normal working in consideration of patients' needs and calls upon the Government to implement their promise to improve the wages of low paid workers. The Committee request that a fair offer be given by the Government by 6th April 1973, otherwise further industrial action will be considered.
The final paragraph of the committee's letter to me reads:
You are asked to give your support to the Committee's request by pressing the Government to consider the Hospital Ancillary Workers' case on its merits and to make an improved pay offer to this group of low paid workers.
I do that gladly. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider this case on its merits. I believe that the ancillary workers have an immensely powerful case. But I do not believe that it can be considered in isolation from the general fight against inflation. It is vital that inflation should be beaten, especially in the interests of the lower paid. If the Government were to make any exceptions this battle, which is crucial to our national survival, would be lost.
By a curious irony I received by the same post another letter from a civil servant saying that the incomes policy was a bitter pill for him to swallow and that he and others like him could swallow it only if it applied to all equally. Again by the same post I received a similar comment from a gas worker. Not long ago I received similar comments from farm workers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) said, it is necessary to be firm to be fair. In the interests of themselves and their families the ancillary workers would be wise, however unwilling to accept the £2 increase which became available from last week and which they are now denying themselves and their families. I believe, too, that they should then put their immensely strong case to the Pay Board, If they do that, I am sure that they will get the justice which they so richly deserve, and I promise that I will back them all the way.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Roland Moyle: Time is getting short and I know that a number of hon. Members still wish to speak. For that reason I shall not comment on the speech of the hon.

Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman).
I want first to make it clear to the House that I am a member of the National Union of Public Employees, which is one of the unions which have organised the strike of hospital ancillary workers.
My second comment is for the ears of the Secretary of State. Since the right hon. Gentleman spoke I have had a few minutes in which to reflect upon his speech. In my view it would be a good idea for both the Secretary of State and this House to pretend that his final remarks were never made, because they denigrated his office and made no contribution to a settlement of the dispute.
I make one exception. When I intervened and referred to the Prices and Incomes Board's recommendation that there should be a work study and an increase in bonuses, the right hon. Gentleman very fairly said that not a great number of bonuses had been introduced in the National Health Service to increase earnings. I readily agree with that.
The board's idea that there should be an extensive work study in the National Health Service to improve the earnings of ancillary workers was, on the surface, a first-class idea. It was welcomed by my union at the time. A great deal of work was put into the idea. However, it failed because the board placed upon the management structure of the health service an operation which it was almost incapable of performing with any degree of efficiency. That is the trouble with the growing practice of more and more disputes being referred to outside arbitration bodies instead of the parties to disputes being encouraged to get round a table and argue matters out. Parties to disputes—both unions and managements—know the conditions of their industry. It should be regarded as an exception rather than the normal practice for outside bodies to be brought in, as seems to be the case with the present Government.
If the Secretary of State introduced a basic and general review of the National Health Service and took advantage of the idea which the board put forward in 1967, there is a chance that the solution of the long-term problem of the National Health Service—namely, the grossly low pay of the ancillary workers, would be found.


But that is not the entire problem with which the industry is faced. Time is very precious for these people. They cannot afford to wait weeks or months for the Pay Board to look at their case and to come to a decision. They cannot afford to wait until the autumn, the introduction of phase 3, and the gearing-up of a Royal Commission to consider their case. With the cost of living continuing to rise and with so many aspects of the cost of living being outside the Government's control, time is becoming even more precious for these workers. Only recently we learned that the index of import prices had risen by 3 per cent. during the course of a month. That is totally outside the control of the Government.
That is why we are pressing for something to be done now, and to be done quickly. One basic statistic which has not been quoted so far is that the ancillary workers have received the lowest offer of any group in the past few months since the Government's prices and incomes policy was introduced. That is important, when we remember that it is the Government's declared policy to help the low-paid worker. Their offer compares extremely unfavourably with the general position of industry.
The average rise of weekly wage rates since December 1971, when the ancillary workers had their last increase, has been 16 per cent. The National Health Service offer, which is there for the taking by the ancillary workers, ranges from 7½ per cent. for some workers to 11 per cent. for others. The offer barely meets the rise in the cost of living.
The ancillary workers are falling behind workers in other industries as a result of the Government's policy. Far from the Government helping the low-paid workers, they are actively conniving to make their position worse. It is no use talking about what will happen in the long term. Lord Keynes, who had a considerably greater amount of room for financial manoeuvre than is available at present, said that in the long run we shall all be dead. In the short run the financial and economic pressures on the health service workers will be tough.
Hon. Members from both sides of the House have referred to the way in which the medical professions are continuing to operate the health service under trying

circumstances. I agree with that. However, there is another aspect to the attitude of the medical profession and other professions towards the industrial action which is taking place. Substantial support is being actively expressed for the ancillary workers throughout the country by doctors, dentists, nurses, physiotherapists and many of the other professions related to the hospital service in the National Health Service. That is something which the Government must take into account.
There has already been a demand by the British Medical Association for an inquiry into the dispute. It is not just a case of the BMA pushing itself forward; it responded to the overwhelming demand of its membership in the hospital service throughout the country.
One depressing fact about the present dispute is that since the creation of the NHS, 25 years ago, the ancillary workers in the health service have behaved exactly as the Conservative Party has always urged working people to behave. They have been responsible and restrained for 25 years.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Only speak when you are spoken to.

Mr. Moyle: They have used the negotiating machinery which has been set up in the industry for the resolution of every dispute which has arisen in the National Health Service since it was created. They have relied totally on the force of argument to put forward their views on how they should be paid and what should be their terms and conditions of service. They have never had national industrial action during the existence of the NHS.
I have often heard right hon. and hon. Members on the Government benches castigate militants, Communists, Trotsky-ists and all sorts of odd people for creating industrial unrest. However the ancillary workers have behaved with total responsibility and a total absence of militant action in pushing their claims. During the past few weeks I have urged that that sort of action should command substantial recognition. The alternative is that a premium is placed upon militancy in our industrial life. I am now in the position of having to tell the ancillary workers that their attitude over the past 25 years counts for nothing, and that they will get no recognition from the Government. If the Secretary of


State can produce some facts to contravene the thesis which I put forward I am willing for him to intervene and put them to the House. I am sure that he will not be able to find any such facts.
The Government are being inflexible. We have been told repeatedly from the Government Dispatch Box and from supporters of the Government that no exception can be made. Exceptions have already been made under the Government's policy. The gas workers have had a pay increase as a result of industrial action which was pursued under the Government's prices and incomes policy. The gas workers' employers are putting more money into their pension fund and the employees are making a smaller contribution to the fund. In addition, they have been given an extra week's holiday. The gas workers have somewhat more industrial muscle than the ancillary workers in the National Health Service, and they are better paid than the ancillary workers.
It is essential that the public should believe that a prices and incomes policy is based on fairness and justice. A position could arise in which members of the public consider the gas dispute and wonder whether the resolution of problems under the Government's prices and incomes policy is based not on justice but on how much industrial muscle can be developed.
There is no need for the Government to worry that if they give more pay to the ancillary workers in the National Health Service other people will quote that increase in other industrial disputes, because no one else wants to know about the rates that ancillary workers get. They are far below those of any other group of workers, except, perhaps, the agricultural workers, so they are not likely to be quoted as a good case in any other industrial dispute. Therefore, if the Government recognise the justice of the ancillary workers' case, as I am sure they do, they must take action swiftly, and outside their precious Price Commission and Pay Board, in order to solve the dispute.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: In the few words I have to say I shall not be other than sympathetic to the ancillary workers. It has pleased me that in

the last four speeches, at least, everyone has recognised the justice of their case. I have been in hospital long enough— although not in recent years—to be grateful for the service I have always had, and I understand the immense benefit and value of the work done by the ancillary workers. Whatever else I may say, that is the first thing I want to make clear.
Having said that, I must also express a point of view which has not been expressed sufficiently in the House by those concerned. Certain professions accept obligations which other professions are not expected to accept. For example, the Armed Forces do not go on strike. One enters them and finds advantages and drawbacks. I take the view that if the profession one chooses is either to teach children or to be responsible for the sick, one of the drawbacks one must accept is that those two professions, perhaps more than any other two, impose upon one an obligation not to withdraw one's labour. That is a point of view which should be expressed in this House.
But the corollary is that a greater responsibility rests on the employers of such people not to place them in a position in which they might be led into the temptation to withdraw their labour. Irrespective of which party is in office— I accept that this applies to both Governments—for far too long these ancillary workers have been underpaid. That is where the true blame lies.
Perhaps these are generalities. I turn to the present position, and this must bring me into the general philosophy of the price and wages freeze. I do not believe that a freeze is workable. There is nothing individual in saying that. It is the view of most members of the Conservative Party, on any long view. But one has to take both a long and a short view.
I sometimes regret as a matter of psychology, the use by the Government of the word "fair". Again and again they have said, "We mean to be fair". The truth is—and it is better to say so at the beginning—that when we seek to deal with wage rises in a community of 60 million people, when so many groups are in different stages of claims, while so many others are not at the moment claiming anything, there is no earthly chance of being fair. We are not going to be


fair, and no price or wage freeze ever has been fair.
But that is not really the argument. Unfortunately, politics is not always the promoting of good. All too often it is a choice of ills—certainly this one is. It is not that the wage freeze is fair; it is that not to have had it would have been even more unfair.
What we must say to people who are unhappy, as these ancillary workers are, is that the evil which would have come about had we not taken this course would have been even worse. In other words, the effect of inflation on the lower paid, the elderly and the pensioners is a worse ill than a total stop for a few months, however unjust that may seem to be to some workers. I am not blaming anyone in this context, but we are in such a position that a full stop had to take place, and there could be no exceptions. It is unfair, but anything else would be even more unfair.
I pay my tribute to those who work in the hospital ancillary services, particularly those in my constituency, who have in most cases maintained their labour. I understand the sacrifices they make and I think that the whole House is sympathetic to them.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) is a member of the medical profession, yet he delivered himself of a number of strictures on those who have put forward the case for the hospital ancillary workers. I regret that he is not now present. As this is a very short debate, one might have expected him to remain in the Chamber after he had made his speech. I shall have to make my comments in his absence.
The hon. Gentleman's strictures contrasted very badly with the comments of the consultant surgeon who appeared on a television programme last Sunday morning. This gentleman, who is a very eminent member of his profession, said, "I feel deeply ashamed, as a member of the profession, that for so many years I have done so little to see that the pay of these ancillary workers is brought up to a decent level." His words earned him the respect of millions of viewers, I am sure.
The Secretary of State said that he would speak as a reporter. I can tell him that he would not last two days in any decent newspaper organisation. He started by trying to bias the debate and put the blame, by implication, on the TUC. He made a complete mis-statement of the facts when he said that, regrettably, the tripartite negotiations last year between the Government, the CBI and the TUC had failed because of the refusal of the TUC to co-operate. He said that this was how all the trouble had arisen.
The facts are worth putting on record again. Half way through the negotiations the negotiating team of the TUC General Council asked the Prime Minister: "Can you give us an assurance that, in the inevitable price rises on essential foods which will come in 1973, you will take stringent measures of control to see that they do not fall upon the shoulders of working people, pensioners and others?" The Prime Minister said that he could give no such assurance, knowing full well that not only would there be an appreciation of prices to the Common Market level but that special additional reasons would be at work to bring about further increases in most food prices— the sort of prices which affect, above all, people like the hospital ancillary workers —which would not be under any effective control when 1973 arrived. That is exactly what happened. The Secretary of State now has the face to lecture people earning between £20 and £25 a week.
There are two other relevant points which we ought to make on behalf of the ancillary workers, despite the rather shoddy speech of the right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith). In the television programme to which I referred, broadcast last Sunday morning, one of the ladies representing the ancillary workers was interviewed at some length. She described how she and two of her colleagues, shop stewards of a group of ancillary workers, every morning went from ward to ward in order to make sure that no patient was in any difficulty that required the emergency application of help by ancillary workers.
What I am saying will be within the recollection of hon. Members who saw the programme. No decent person listening to and viewing this programme could be other than profoundly moved by the


statement made by that representative of some of the ancillary workers. There was no trace of that in the speech by the right hon. Member for Chislehurst. Indeed, there was no trace of it—which is far more serious—in the speech by the Secretary of State, who is responsible for these people and is their representative and ought to be their spokesman in the Cabinet.
This is one of the most important debates that the House has held since the General Election. Hon. Members on both sides have said, "We are appalled to find that for these very important jobs people are getting such low wages." But before the ancillary workers took any action, how many people were saying that in this House and outside? Moderates are being turned into militants because they know that unless they take some action nobody will listen to them.
The Government have a bounden duty to say that they will not be confined to the straitjacket of this legislation. We have built up conciliation machinery and public inquiries of many different kinds. The safeguard of a public inquiry is that it allows an independent court to point in the direction which is neither what the Government want nor what the unions want, but enables them to get round the table to find some agreement. We have been priding ourselves on this machinery. The Government's refusal to respond to the BMA's request for an immediate public inquiry is an abdication of their duty in the face of a serious situation. They are failing their country. It is our duty to drive the lesson home to all concerned.

6.52 p.m.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: One of the problems facing Parliament is that politicians are seen by the public as being short-sighted and somewhat absent-minded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) asked: how many people have been talking about the pay and conditions of hospital ancillary workers, except in the last few weeks? Certainly the trade unions have been doing so. I speak as a member of one of the unions involved—the General and Municipal Workers' Union.
One point which has been made from the Government benches today is that if

only the ancillary workers will be patient, moderate, and wait a little while all will be sweetness and light, and at the end of the day they will move up the wages league table. The only problem which Government supporters face in advancing this view is that for 25 years that very point has been made to ancillary workers and, unfortunately, they are still at the foot of the wages league table.
It is incredibly difficult to give any real credibility to the argument advanced for the Government's phase 3, because, throughout wage freezes and pay pauses, ancillary workers have been told that the reasons for such wage freezes, pay pauses or prices and incomes policies have been to help lower-paid workers. We had this in the 1950s, in the early 1960s and in the period of the last Labour Government, and we are having it again now. The facts are that in the ancillary workers' view they do not make a jot of difference.
What is so tragic about the situation, in view of the pleas for moderate behaviour and statements about militancy and politically motivated people, is that the ancillary workers have nowhere else to go. This is the lesson to be drawn from the present dispute. Everything else has been tried by the ancillary workers' unions. Moderation and negotiations through the machinery have been tried, and no progress has been made.
In this situation it is astonishing to hear the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) talk about fairness. The biggest single criticism of the Government is that in the face of their grossly unfair policies they are calling on trade unionists to be fair and moderate.
I take one further point from the short intervention by the hon. Member for Dorset, South. He said that it is not possible to be fair. I contradict that suggestion. The only chance we have of being fair to people is through Government intervention in some kind of public sector wages policy. If we, as a community, are to be fair, it is important in the context not only of ancillary workers but of local authority and other low-paid workers, to talk about fairness in the Chamber of the House of Commons. As a community we must decide to pay these people what we believe they are entitled to receive as members


of society doing difficult, unpleasant and, in some cases, unwanted jobs.
The Secretary of State said that the Government would not be moved and that there could be no inquiry. It is an indictment of the Government's attitude and thinking for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us this today, given the crisis situation in the National Health Service. The tragedy is that the quality of service, the morale in the health service, and the numbers of people who want to work in it will be seriously damaged as a result of this dispute which the Government have it in their power to resolve.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, referring to what they describe as the new militancy and militants, have said that hospital workers are amongst those who have not previously been militant. One cannot help but ask why. Have their extreme conditions brought about this situation? Is it the example which they are being set by many other people?
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that low-paid workers are suffering because of the overt militancy of higher-paid workers in powerful positions. I suggest that if they want to help cure inflation their duty is to bring to bear whatever pressure they can to stop people who are abusing the economy by the use of naked power.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Who are they?

Mr. Adley: For months the TUC has been telling the Government how to run the country and the economy. It is about time somebody suggested to the TUC that if it is to look after the interests of workpeople, and if the trade unions exist to look after the working conditions of those whom they seek to represent, then, in this day and age of enlightenment, it should take the lead in making sure that the lower paid get the biggest chunk of pay increases.
If the voluntary policy negotiated by the TUC, the CBI and the Government had been accepted, I believe that we would have had the foundations for the kind of society to which the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. John A. Cunningham) referred. Unfortunately,

the TUC rejected any voluntary policy, not because the non-militant majority did not want to go along with it, but because, as we all know, at the moment the voice of militancy is swaying the TUC, and those who are able and willing to cooperate with the Government are frightened to do so.

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Adley: No. I want to make a short speech.
The Labour Party, both in this House and in the country, has been seeking a body of workers whom it can use as a battering ram with which to try to beat the Government's counter-inflation policy. Crocodile tears have been shed this afternoon. The only way in which low-paid workers can get a fair deal is by bringing inflation under control. I do not believe that anything the Government do which brings about a breach in the counter-inflation policy can possibly be in the interests of low-paid workers.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: If the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) is suggesting that the Government's whole inflationary strategy will come tumbling down if mortuary assistants get more than £19 a week, all I can say is that the Government do not have much of an incomes policy strategy. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the whole future of this Government, and the whole future of their policies, depends on hospital ancillary workers not getting more than they are getting now. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can live on those wages, if he thinks he knows what it is like to live on those wages, if he thinks he knows the aspirations of and the cost of living for people on those wages, he ought to get to his constituency more often and find out the facts.
The people who have been holding the health service and the country to ransom recently are the BMA and the doctors, who have threatened mass resignations. It does not do consultants in the Birmingham area any good when they sign petitions saying that waiting lists are getting longer. I was a member of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board for two-and-a-half years. When I was on that board the waiting lists got longer and


longer—[Laughter.] I honestly do not think that mortuary assistants earning £19 a week are very funny. The waiting lists lengthened because the consultants who are criticising hospital ancillary workers were busy feathering their nests through private practice.
The consultants who have suddenly developed a new-found concern about waiting lists are the biggest bunch of hypocrites under the sun. They are the people who, year after year, have been getting the backhanders—getting the money out of their merit awards. Whatever the circumstances of the country, and whatever the circumstances of hospital ancillary workers, the consultants will always be pushing for an increase in their fees and in their private practice. If anybody does damage to the hospital service and increases hospital waiting lists it is the consultants, because of the way in which they constantly push for more private practice. In a hospital in the Midlands area, so concerned were some of the consultants that they were even sending down barrels of beer to the porters to prevent them from going on strike.
Can a hospital ancillary worker have any confidence in submitting his case to the Pay Board, the chairman of which is to receive more in tax concessions under the Government's Budget than the typical hospital ancillary worker is paid in a week? Can a hospital ancillary worker have much confidence in the Government when he knows that consultants working in other parts of the hospital in private practice can make in a week more than 10 times what he will get, even with the Government's offer?
If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that hospital workers going on strike and becoming involved in industrial disputes do not have any qualms of conscience, let me assure them that they do. They are concerned about their patients. They are concerned about the lives of people in hospital. But they know damned well that one does not get anything out of this Government by playing the rules. They know that if they want to get anything out of this Secretary of State they have to fight—and fight I hope they will.

7.5 p.m.

Sir K. Joseph: With the permission of the House, I should like to make a few

remarks after what has been a deeply-felt debate.
A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have made very concerned and sincere speeches about the pay of ancillary workers, but I have to remind the House that the second best increase ever offered to them is now on the table, and also that the best increase since the war was made under this Government. Secondly, I have to remind the House that the Pay Board is available for the ancillary workers, and they can take their deeply-felt case to it.
There has been an equal number of concerned speeches by my hon. Friends. Perhaps I may tell my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) that during the debate I have received news from the hospital secretary at Long Grove, the hospital to which he referred, that a return to work tomorrow is almost certain.
I assure my hon. Friends who want the Government not to restrain volunteers that it is in the interests of the National Health Service to allow those ancillary workers who are at work—and they are the majority—to go on working, calling in volunteers only where the unions, after their best efforts, fail to keep the essential services going.
Two big issues have arisen during this debate. The first is why these normally moderate unions are striking. The second is whether they should be made a special case. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) teased me very effectively. I must say to him that maybe we have learned from our experiences. It may be that the repercussions of Labour years and the squeezed standard of living left the ferment which we inherited. It may be that the demonstrations of militancy over the years, under both Labour and Tory Governments, have led to what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Dr. Trafford) called competitive militancy.
That is why, after seeking a voluntary agreement with the unions, the Government have tried to construct a policy for restraining the higher paid to increases not far beyond productivity growth, while giving differentially better increases to the low paid and providing, through the Pay Board, the mechanism for considering anomalies in relation to pay as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) has a heavy task in winding up the debate. He seeks a special inquiry, and, therefore, special treatment, for the hospital ancillary workers who are among the lower paid. Does he not know that special treatment is what many other unions, some of them not low paid, are seeking? Does he not know that once conceded it would be the much higher-paid battalions who would ride on the backs of the hospital ancillary workers to a free-for-all? The right hon. Gentlman is virtually arguing for a return to a free-for-all, nominally in the interests of the lower paid, but a free-for-all cannot help the lower paid. The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) said so in a short, very human, but magisterial speech.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was right in stressing that hospital ancillary workers are not the only lower paid. My hon. Friends were right in saying that for the first time the lower paid are to be helped by this policy. The Pay Board offers the first hope of a beginning to apply pay policy more sensitively to the needs of the lower paid.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Deptford will not focus only on low pay. There is £2 extra a week available at once to improve that. Let the right hon. Gentleman recognise that our policy is the only one that can abate inflation while being fairer than ever before to the lower paid. Let the right hon. Gentleman not tell us just about living on the lowest pay, because pay was lower still when the Labour Government were in office. The issue here is how to help the low paid without wrecking the efficiency of the country. Plausible appeals for special treatment which ignore the familiar reprecussions on the cost of living will not do. A free-for-all does not help the low paid. How can the right hon. Gentleman possibly seek a free-for-all nominally in the interests of those whom it hurts most— the lower paid?

7.10 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I have only a very few minutes left before this debate closes. I expressed my regret when I opened the debate at having raised this subject, but said that I regarded it as important. I express no regret at all after having

listened to the debate for nearly three hours—no regret because it clearly is an important, urgent, crisis question that needed to be discussed in this House. It had not been discussed before, and it looked as though it was not likely to be discussed at all.
While we are considering a question of this sort, let us see how much agreement there was in the House on at any rate one issue. With the exception of the right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) and, I think, one other hon. Member, every speaker expressed the feeling that the ancillary hospital workers were being unjustly treated. This view was expressed on both sides.
Where we differed was on one point, and one point only, and that is the point that the Secretary of State was making just now. Where we differed was on the question whether there should be exceptional treatment for an exceptional group of workers working in exceptional circumstances, when those workers have been deserted by the Government who should have been succouring them, whose duty it was to assist them and whose Secretary of State is pledged to run the National Health Service.
There would have been no need for this if, in February 1972, when he received the report from the Department of Employment, the right hon. Gentleman had done anything about it. He had the time, to do it, but he did nothing at all. He himself admits that he knew the contents of that report, a report that said that the whole National Health Service was operated on the good will of low-paid people.
We have heard some examples today of how much they are paid. We know what the situation is. It is no good his coming to us now and saying "We, the Government, have to face inflation" —and inflation, incidentally, of their making, not of ours—[An HON. MENIBER: "Rubbish."]—true—"We have to face inflation, and therefore, we make the rules and you must abide by them." That is not the view of the workers in the industry, workers who have never struck before.
It is not the view of the BMA. The BMA could very well have taken the view that the hospital workers should get back


to work as soon as possible. What it said was "Yes, but let them have an independent inquiry, because this is vital." The Secretary of the BMA himself said that in a just society the ancillary workers would have been given a fair wage. So we have to accept what the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) said, that we do not have a just society.
I had hoped that the Secretary of State, instead of delivering, as I am afraid he did—he is no doubt under a considerable nervous strain—a five-minute party political piece earlier today—[An HON. MEMBER: "Cheap."] Not at all cheap. The

hon. Member should have heard the speech. We had hoped that when the Secretary of State came here he would have come with some constructive views to give us. He gave us none. He gave us the old parrot cry. He admitted that the men were justified in their claim: he did nothing about it.

For that reason, I ask my hon. Friends to show their disapproval of the Secretary of State, of his colleagues and of their whole attitude in the Division Lobby.

Question put That this House do now adjourn: —

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 295.

Division No. 89.]
AYES
[7.14 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Janner, Greville


Allaun, Frank (Sallord, E.)
Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dormand, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Armstrong, Ernest
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Ashley, Jack
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Ashton, Joe
Driberg, Tom
John, Brynmor


Atkinson, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bagier Gordon A.T.
Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Barnes Michael
Esdie. Alex
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilsfon)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham.S.)


Baxter William
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ellis, Tom
Jones T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
English, Michael
JUdd, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Evens, Fred
Kaufman, Gerald


Bshop, E.S.
Ewing, Harry
Kelley, Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr,Russell


Boardman. H. (Leigh)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kinnock, Neil


Booth, Albert
Flsher,Mrs.Doris(Bham,Ladywood)
Lambie, David


Bottomely, Rt. HN. Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamborn, Harry




Laymond James


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Foot, Michael
Latham, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Frod, Ben
Lawson, George


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Robert C. (Nc'lle-u-Tyne,W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lee. Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
Leonard, Dick


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lestor, Miss Joan


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gilbert, Dr. john
Lipton, Marcus


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lomas, Kenneth


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Golding, John
Loughlin, Charles


Cant, R.B.
Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Carmichael, Nell
Grant George (Morpeth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mabon Dr J Dickson


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McBride Neil


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McCartney Huah


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McEIhone, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McGuire Michael


Concannon, J. D.
Hamling, William
Machin George


Conlan, Bernard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)



Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hardy, Peter
Mackie John P.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)



Cronin, John
Hari, Tr, Hn, Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crosland, Rt, Hn. Anthony
Hattersley, ro
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Crossman, Rt, Hn. Richard
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Haffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Horam John
Marsden, F.


Dalyell, Tam
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
 Meacher, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mendelson, John


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hunter, Adam
Millan, Bruce


Delargy, Hugh
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Miller. Dr. M. S.




Milne, Edward
Probert, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, lichen)
Radice, Giles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Molloy, William
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Morris. Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Richard, Ivor
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomney, Frank


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Torney, Tom


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tuck, Raphael


Murray, Ronald King
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc n&amp;R'dnor)
Urwin, T. W.


Oakes, Gordon
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Varley, Eric G.


Ogden, Eric
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin


O'Halloran, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walden, Briar, (B'm'ham, All Saints)


O'Malley, Brian
Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oram, Bert
Sandelson, Neville
Wallace, George


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
 Weitzman, David


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wellbeloved, James


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitehead, Phillip


Paget, R. T.
Sillars, James
Whitlock, William


Palmer, Arthur
Silverman, Julius
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Small, William
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.



Perry, Ernest G.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Prescott, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Price, William (Rugby)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Cooper, A. E.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Grylls, Michael


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Critchley, Julian
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Astor, John
Crouch, David
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Crowder, F. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Awdry, Daniel
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Dean, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Batsford, Brian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Haselhurst, Alan


Bell, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Havers, Sir Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hawkins, Paul


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drayson, G. B.
Hayhoe, Barney


Benyon, W.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Heseltine, Michael


Biffen, John
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hicks, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Higgins, Terence L.


Blaker, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hiley, Joseph


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Elliott, R. W (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hill, S. James A.(Southampton, Test)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter
Holland, Philip


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eyre, Reginald
Holt, Miss Mary


Bowden, Andrew
Farr, John
Hooson, Emlyn


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fell, Anthony
Hordern, Peter


Bray, Ronald
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fidler, Michael
Howell, David (Guildford)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Hunt, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet
Iremonger, T. L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Fortescue, Tim
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Buck, Antony
Foster, Sir John
James, David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fowler, Norman
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Burden, F. A.
Fox, Marcus
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Butler, Adam (Bosworlh)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jessel, Toby


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
 Fry, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Carlisle, Mark
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Jopling, Michael


Cary, Sir Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Channon, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chapman, Sydney
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kershaw, Anthony


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip
Kilfedder, James


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhew, Victor
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gorst, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gower, Raymond
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cockeram, Eric
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Cooke, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Kitson, Timothy


Coombs, Derek
Green, Alan
Knight, Mrs. Jill







Knox, David
Osborn, John
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Lambton, Lord
Owen, Idris (Slockport, N.)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Lamont, Norman
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stokes, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Le Marchant, Spencer
Percival, Ian
Sutcliffe, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tapsell, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Loveridge, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Luce, R. N.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tebbit, Norman


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Temple, John M.


McCrindle, R. A.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


McLaren, Martin
Raison, Timothy
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurlce (Farnham)
 Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Redmond, Robert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tilney, John


Maddan, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tope, Graham


Madel, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trew, Peter


Marten, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
Tugendhal, Christopher


Mather, Carol
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Turton, Rt. HN. Sir Robin


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Vaughan Dr. Gerard


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waddington, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ros , Peter
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Miscampbell, Norman
Royle, Anthony
Walker-Smith Rt Hn Sir Derek


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
 Russell, Sir Ronald
Wall, Patrick


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Moate, Roger
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Ward, Dame Irene


Money, Ernie
Scott, Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Scott-Hopkins, James
White, roger (Gravesend)


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Montgomery, Fergus
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wiggin, Jerry


More, Jasper
Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Simeons, Charles
Winterton, Nicholas


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sinclair, Sir George
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Morrison, Charles
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mudd, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Murton, Oscar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
woodnutt? Mark


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Soref, Harold
Worsley, Marcus


Neave, Airey
Speed, Keith
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Spence, John
Younger, Hn. George


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sproat, lain



Normanton, Tom
Stainton, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nott, John
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Orders of the Day — ROYAL NAVY

7.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity of opening this debate on the Royal Navy. The last four months, during which period I have had the privilege of being Minister for the Navy, have been utterly fascinating. I should like to think that they have been worth while, too. I hope that the House will forgive me if I first give it some account of my general approach to the job with which I have been entrusted, and then I should like to tell right hon. and hon. Members something of the way in which I have been seeking to tackle the challenging and historic task of being charged with particular responsibility for the affairs of the Royal Navy.
First, as to my general approach to my job, I assure the House that it will be my aim to take right hon. and hon. Members as much into my confidence as, to coin a phrase, the exigencies of the Service premit. I confess, however, that my antecedents relative to my capacity to undertake this exercise in "open government" are not very promising. I say that because I have the privilege, at one and the same time, of representing in the House the "Oyster constituency" and of being Minister for what is sometimes known as the "silent Service". But in spite of these built-in deterrents to success, I shall do my best as time goes on to keep the House as fully informed about the Navy's affairs as is consistent with security and with my desire not to reveal matters which could be of benefit to those who are hostile to our nation's wellbeing.
Having said that, I shall now say something of the way in which I have sought so far to learn about and perform my job. It seemed to me, with a non-

maritime background, that it was very important that I should get to sea as soon after my appointment as was reasonably possible. It also seemed right to go to sea in a relatively small craft in order to enable me to get to know a whole ship's company. Thus, my first time afloat was in HMS "Brinton", a 500-ton coastal minesweeper. I am told that all admirals take seasickness pills, and I am afraid that I took some of those pills, too.
I spent two days with that ship on one of her fishery protection patrols off the north-east coast in mid-January. Preceding my time afloat I visited Chatham, and I am bound to admit to the House that I was utterly staggered by the technical, managerial and human complexities involved in the refit of naval ships, and particularly those involved in the refit of nuclear submarines; but more of the dockyards later. From thence I have been carrying out what can be called a "rolling" programme of visits, which is by no means yet complete. It culminated last week in a visit which I paid to HMS "Ark Royal". I flew on to this splendid ship in a Buccaneer of 809 Squadron whilst she was in the eastern approaches. This, together with a flight which I had in a Harrier the week before last, ranks, with lunching in that wonderful ship HMS "Victory" and dining in the superb Painted Hall at Greenwich, as one of the most remarkable experiences I have had since undertaking my present task.
The message which I bring back from these and the many other visits I have tried to pack into recent weeks is that the nation is entitled to be very proud of its Navy—first, because of the spirit which exists in all branches of the fleet and, secondly, because of the technical efficiency and expertise which there is.
It is, I think, an all too prevalent national characteristic to "knock" our own achievements and to underrate that which we have accomplished and are accomplishing. I hope the House will forgive me for having put these propositions firmly before it, because they tie in with my belief that perhaps the "silent Service" is a little too silent about what it is doing for us as a nation.
Some may ask why we need to have what is probably the third most powerful Navy in the world. I would like to get it firmly on record that it is my belief that


it is as vital today as ever it was that we should have a powerful maritime arm —first, because of the basic facts of our economic and geographical position, with 60 ocean-going ships arriving every day in our country's ports bringing key supplies of every description and, secondly, because the key to our defence is NATO and, as I see it, the alliance relies on Britain, after the United States, to continue to lead in maritime capability and expertise.
In addition to its traditional rôle as a means of communication, the sea and the seabed have in recent years taken on a growing importance in terms of its potential as a source of food, oil and other resources. We are, therefore, right to be concerned internationally about the responsible development and regulation of the maritime environment. It is undeniable that potential causes of instability at sea abound at every level of capability, and one does not have to look far back into history to see how countries like the Soviet Union, as well as our NATO allies, have learned the lesson that the high seas are a ready platform for the exercise of political pressure.
It seems to me to be clear that the Soviet Union has indeed learned this lesson and has learned it through its experiences in modern times. The result of the Cuban missile crisis showed how one country, namely Russia, could be prevented from achieving a desired aim through its failure to be able to deploy a credible naval force in distant waters.
Ten years ago the Russians had a fleet with modern weapons, but it was largely a defensive force. Since Cuba, the Russians appear to have decided that they would build up—and build up with great rapidity—an ocean-going fleet capable of deployment in distant waters. Among their new equipment they have the new Kresta II cruiser, with a surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missile fit in addition to guns, torpedoes and a helicopter. Then there are the "Moskva" and "Leningrad"—18,000-ton ships, reportedly capable of operating up to 30 helicopters. There is further, the Krivak class of guided missile destroyer.
The Russians have more than 100 ships of destroyer size and above and in the last 10 years they have, of course, also

built up to a formidable extent their submarine fleet. Nuclear submarines are now being launched at the average rate of about one a month. Their total submarine fleet is around 400, and the proportion of nuclears has reached almost a quarter and is steadily rising. They also have landing ships such as the "Alligator" which have the capacity to provide the "lift" for about 15,000 naval infantry. The average number of surface ships deployed away from home waters has risen from about 70 to about 140 over the past four years.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are we to believe the reports emanating from both the British Press and the Chinese, to the effect that there is a considerable Russian deployment in the Indian Ocean? Can the House be given any information about that?

Mr. Buck: One of the difficulties I experience in my office is to know exactly what I can say about these matters. Can I leave it by saying that I will check on what I can say about that? There is deployment in that area. I will write to the hon. Gentleman or deal with the matter further in the debate, if I can. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way he put his question.
It is against this background that we have to consider our fleet.
As is reflected in the Defence White Paper, this coming year will be a year of test and opportunity for NATO, with increasing Soviet involvement in maritime affairs and with a growing interest in areas of the world with which she has not traditionally concerned herself. In order to safeguard our position in this changing international climate our policy must be, with the limited resources available to us, to assess with care the tasks which we will need to undertake at sea, attempt to forecast their likely level in the years to come, and then arrange operational and equipment priorities accordingly.
To the best of our ability, we have been concerned to maintain sufficient expertise in relevant fields such as tactics, training and equipment generally, so that, together with our allies, we will be able to match the likely ebb and flow of threats and commitments. Of course, because the object of Britain's defence posture is to deter, we need the ability to react to a wide variety of situations.
The specific capabilities to be provided must always be a matter of judgment, and I would like to emphasise that our current spread of naval capabilities accords with NATO plans. Any major switch of emphasis would be likely to unbalance this great alliance, on which so many speakers from both sides of the House have rightly placed reliance during the course of our defence debates. As hon. Members will appreciate, NATO strategy is based on the principle that provided the alliance as a whole shows an evident ability and will to counter any level of aggression any potential enemy will be deterred from taking action which could lead to major hostilities. The potential aggressor must not be left in any doubt that NATO has the intention and the means both to counter any local action at the appropriate level and to provide suitable response at a higher level, should this be necessary.
It is relatively easy to decide on the extremes of capability—at the one end, Polaris submarines and, at the other, patrol craft. The key issue seems to me to be to identify the optimum mix of numbers and capability in between. Our present mix is one which we consider will, in all the circumstances, enable us most successfully to fulfil our varying levels of commitment around the globe.
Our most numerous and widely deployed ships are frigates—the smallest single ocean-going units with an effective fighting capability. The core of this force is the Leander class general purpose frigate, of which 26 are now in service. They are supplemented by older ships, which are planned to be replaced progressively by a continuing programme of new construction. There are eight Amazon class Type 21s currently building, and we hope to invite a tender for the first Type 22 frigate in the very near future. The first should be completed early in 1978.
Whilst frigates can and often do operate independently, more powerful ships are also required. At present these consist of the guided missile destroyers of the County class and the cruisers "Tiger" and "Blake". These are being supplemented by HMS "Bristol" and ships of the Type 42 class, of which six are now under construction and should be accepted into service in the middle years of the decade. Then, of course,

there is the command or through-deck cruiser, the order for the first of which should be placed very shortly. The House knows that they will not only provide facilities as command ships in a NATO or national setting but will have aboard Sea King helicopters and, it is hoped, the maritime version of the Harrier. As I mentioned earlier, in passing, I have flown in this remarkable aircraft and I am hopeful that the project definition which is now being concluded will show that the Harrier will be able to undertake the multi-rôle of being an attack, reconnaissance and all-weather air defence maritime aircraft. As the House knows we hope to be able to announce our decision before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess. A higher level of capability is also provided by "Ark Royal" and by the six nuclear-powered fleet submarines now in service.
A further valuable capability is provided by our amphibious force, namely the two commando ships "Hermes" and "Bulwark" and the two assault ships "Fearless" and "Intrepid", the Wessex 5 helicopter squadrons and the four commando groups of the Royal Marines. I look forward to seeing something of the Royal Marines who are playing a key rôle in support of the flanks of NATO for I am proposing to visit them during a major exercise in the late spring. It must also be remembered that the Royal Marines are rightly taking their share of the burden imposed in military terms, most particularly on the Army in Northern Ireland. Tributes have rightly come from all sides of the House relative to what the Army is achieving and enduring in Northern Ireland. Having a garrison constituency and having paid five visits to Northern Ireland since the recent troubles started I can echo those tributes which it would be impossible to utter in too fulsome a way.
Before long I am hoping to pay another visit to the Province, not only to visit troops from my constituency but also, particularly, to see something of the burdens which 42 Royal Marine Commando is bearing in Belfast. Whilst I am dealing with Northern Ireland perhaps I should remind the House of the valuable work being done by the Navy by providing anti-gun-running patrols off the Irish coasts. These patrols are of the utmost importance. I do not imagine


I shall be pressed for details of them by hon. Members.
Perhaps the most commonly-heard criticism of our present balance of forces is that we should put more resources than we do into our nuclear-powered fleet submarine programme. It is easy to understand the thinking behind this; the power and potential of the nuclear submarine for certain naval operations is clear. However, there are many tasks from fishery protection off Iceland to the Beira Patrol which cannot be undertaken by our submarines.
However, let the House not think for one moment that we do not appreciate the vital importance not only of our Polaris submarines but also of our force of nuclear powered fleet submarines. We have five building at the moment, and the first of these, HMS "Swiftsure", which is due to enter service later in the spring, is the lead ship of a new class and, as was revealed in the White Paper, work is continuing on the design of improved classes to follow on from "Swiftsure".
Hand in hand with this important building programme is our effort to see such boats—and I am told by authorities that it is right to refer to submarines as boats—are properly equipped. The House will remember that last year project definition studies were initiated relative to the devising of a really effective under-surface guided weapon system. I fear that all I can say at this stage is that these studies are going ahead and that it seems to me that they are going well.
As to torpedoes, the final acceptance trials of the Mark 24 are now nearing completion and the torpedo is due to enter service shortly. It will replace the Mark 23 torpedo as the anti-submarine armament of our own conventional, fleet and Polaris submarines. Frankly, I rind it disappointing that the development of the Mark 24 has taken longer than was originally planned. However it is a sophisticated weapon, faster with longer range and a less degree of susceptibility to counter-measures than its predecessor, and its introduction will make a very valuable contribution to the effectiveness of our submarines.
Good progress has been made with Seadart, the new medium-range ship-

launched surface-to-air guided weapon system, and the system is at sea in HMS "Bristol", as is the Ikara quick reaction anti-submarine system. These weapons will be fitted in the Type 42 class and in some Leanders respectively. The development of Seawolf is going according to plan, and we propose to fit this system in the new Type 22 frigate and in certain Leanders and Type 21s. A wide range of ships will also be fitted during the 1970s with Exocet and first deliveries of ship equipment have now been made.
The whole of our balanced fleet would, of course, be useless if we had not got high quality well-trained sailors to man our ships and highly professional officers to lead them. Gone are the days when all one needed to arm a good Scotsman or, indeed, a sailor was "gunpowder and oatmeal". In this context I should like to pay a particular tribute to my predecessor, who, I know, regrets not being able to be here, his duties in Europe preventing that, for the improvements in service conditions and studies for future improvements which he instituted. As will be known to the House, Lord Seebohm is now examining what may be described as our social support organisation for our men and for their families. I am most grateful for the work that Lord Seebohm is doing and I look forward to having the opportunity of considering the conclusions which he arrives at and the recommendations which he will no doubt make as to further improvements.

Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave gunpowder and oatmeal, will the Minister say something about the Sound of Raasay and the need for the British Underwater Technical Evaluation Centre to be there?

Mr. Buck: I would have hoped that the hon. Member would be satisfied by the admirable response he drew from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army after the debate on BUTEC, which happened to coincide with a visit I was making to Scotland, because of which I was not able to be here. I would have thought that my hon. Friend's reply would have satisfied the hon. Member. If not, I look forward to hearing what he has to say on this score later, and after that I will repeat some of the cogent arguments put forward by my hon. Friend. It seems to me that BUTEC


going there creating job opportunities and the infusion of money into that part of Scotland will be a valuable asset in a place where job opportunities and additional money appear to be needed.
Passing from Raasay and oatmeal and gunpowder, I turn to recruiting. We are satisfied with recruitment of officers, and the combined Royal Navy and Royal Marines recruiting target of over 9,000 ratings and other ranks entering in 1972–73 is expected to be met fully. A particularly encouraging feature has been the large number of juniors joining the Royal Navy at 16 years of age.
Not only do we need to keep our fleet well equipped and well manned; it must be supported by efficient and effective dockyards, and during our last session the Public Accounts Committee had certain comments to make on these. Many of the problems we face are not, of course, peculiar to the Royal dockyards but are common to the ship-repairing industry as a whole. Moreover, warship repair is acknowledged to be quite the most difficult of all types of repair operations to estimate and control, because of the enormous and increasing complexity of modern warships and the high performance standard required of them in the Service.
In addition, planning and execution of the work are sometimes interrupted by urgent operational requirements of the fleet. Our experience is that visitors to the Royal Dockyards never fail to be impressed, and are frequently daunted, by the magnitude and intricacy of the work involved in refitting Her Majesty's ships, especially a nuclear submarine. That is a remarkable experience. In our constant endeavours to improve the working of our dockyards we have been, and are being, greatly assisted by Sir Henry Benson and Mr. Richard O'Brien, whose membership of the Royal Dockyard Policy Board has been of real value to us.
In particular, the introduction of nuclear submarines into the fleet is requiring radical changes in dockyard organisation. There is the provision of extensive and expensive new facilities, the learning and application of new techniques and skills by dockyard workers to provide the necessary docking, repair and support capability. I am sure that the dockyards will react appropriately to the challenge with which they will

be faced in future in refitting and repairing the new classes of surface ship to which I have referred, the Type 22 and Type 42, and the associated new weapons systems shortly to be introduced.
The whole dockyard service is geared to the need to keep abreast of the very latest advances in technology, and to meet the increasing complexity of their task. I am confident that they will not prove lacking here and that, with the assistance of the improved facilities, new workshops, covered docks and the like, for which provision has already been made in the dockyard development programme, they will continue to provide the fleet with the service it requires.
I apologise for having spoken at such length. No doubt many matters will be raised during the debate, and I will try if I am permitted, to deal with them in my reply or by correspondence if that turns out to be more appropriate. I look forward to hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). I suspect that he is enjoying being Shadow Minister for the Navy as much as I am enjoying being its Minister. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that I trust he will long continue in that shadow rôle. I will do all I can to increase his considerable knowledge of the Navy by visits and so forth.
I freely acknowledge that we on this side of the House do not have a monopoly of patriotism or concern for the Armed Forces. While I acknowledge this I am bound to say that I sometimes wish hon. Members opposite would acknowledge that they do not have a monopoly of social conscience. I am sometimes alarmed by the utterances of some hon. Members opposite who would apparently wish virtually to scrap all our defences. I hope that in the course of the speech the hon. Gentleman will make his attitude towards such of his colleagues very clear.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I begin in the mood in which the Minister concluded and congratulate him on his fine first performance from the Government Front Bench as the Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. If I may reciprocate the good wishes which he has extended, I hope that he will continue to enjoy what will inevitably be a limited stay at the


Ministry. I trust that when he resumes his rightful place as Opposition spokesman he will be given the same friendly help and courtesy as that extended to me over the past year by him and his predecessor and numerous civilian and naval staff. I would like all concerned to know how grateful I am.
On behalf of the Opposition I begin by expressing in absolutely confident terms our unlimited tribute to the men and women of the Royal Navy. I particularly want to speak for a moment about the women of the Royal Navy because sometimes they are overlooked on these annual occasions. We sometimes find that the WRNS are considered as being indispensable when recruiting is going badly, but when it is going well they are sometimes pushed into the background. On behalf of the Opposition I place on record our continuing admiration for the services supplied by the WRNS.
I want to emphasise what the Minister said about the Royal Marines. They have served with distinction in Northern Ireland, and in many ways they are demonstrating themselves as being well suited to the sort of limited engagements we have come to expect in modern times.
Having referred to the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the WRNS, I also refer to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the Port Auxiliary Services, and the countless civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence working for the Navy and without whom the Navy's operations would be impossible.
The Minister dwelt on the importance of this annual debate. I emphasise that. We have first to consider the nature of the country in which we live. We remain a sea-locked trading nation. Entry to the EEC will not change that basic reality. If after our entry to the EEC we look at ourselves in a European context, apart from our vital exports essential to the economic viability of Britain, we see that more than 120 oceangoing ships arrive daily in the ports of Western Europe and discharge more than 1 million tons of cargo. More than half of this gigantic operation takes place in the ports of the United Kingdom.
The sea is certainly as vital as it has ever been. This historical involvement with the sea is not the only justification for this debate. There is the whole issue of the mineral and other resources in and beneath the sea. These are likely to become a major preoccupation of policymakers in future, and not only the policymakers of nations adjacent to the sea such as ourselves but also the policymakers of land-locked nations who want their share of the sea's resources.
Our current discussions about Iceland are an example of the maritime conflict that can arise. They are but an indication of things to come. Tactical policies for meeting this serious situation must be considered against the long-term strategy for the law of the sea. The forthcoming United Nations international Law of the Sea Conference at Santiago will be of major significance for the future of humanity and not least for us in Britain. In success or failure the implications of the conference will be considerable for future naval policy. It is time that we heard a good deal more about the Government's thinking in this highly significant area.
The White Paper referred in its introduction to what it called in rather brutal terms "Developments in the Threat". That is fair enough, I suppose. The Russians, I believe—this lies behind what the White Paper says—have clearly recognised the sort of arguments I have been advancing. They see the potential future wealth to be found in the oceans. They are also keeping their options open in traditional ways for extending their sphere of influence, perhaps, as I argued the other night, even in terms, if the opportunity presented itself, of the Finlandisation of Western Europe.
In this context, I endorse the Minister's remarks by quoting from no less an authority than the First Sea Lord, who, writing in The Financial Times, said:
As for naval forces"—
this is referring to Russia—
she has some 200 surface ships, ranging from the powerful KRESTA ASW and guided-missile carrying cruiser and the Moskva helicopter ship with 20 helicopters, and surface-to-air missiles, through a range of destroyers and frigates, most of them modern, and many of them missile-firing, down to a force of some 600 fast patrol boats for coastal work, many


of which are also equipped with missiles. She has the largest submarine force in the world, some 400 strong and including both cruise-missile and ballistic missile systems, as well as attack submarines for use against surface forces and merchant shipping and to counter allied submarines. At present a quarter are nuclear-powered: virtually all submarine building is now nuclear and these submarines"—
as the Minister said—
are being launched at about one a month, replacing older submarines. She has a large shore-based long-range maritime air force of some 850 aircraft to support her Fleet. In addition of course the line between a naval and a merchant ship in the Soviet Fleets is very blurred; so the fishing and merchant fleets add a considerable naval potential, if only as 'eyes and ears'.
In considering submarine developments, as hon. Members—not least the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)—have explained, in the Second World War the ratio of German submarines to allied anti-submarine vessels was 1:5·9. Now the ratio of Russian submarines to NATO anti-submarine vessels is 1:1·6. Where do we stand?
I was interested to read in the newspapers yesterday that there is soon to be a big naval display in the Firth of Forth, to be preceded by a magnificent banquet for all attending dignitaries. I only hope that the menu for the banquet will prove more satisfying than the overall picture of cohesive naval priorities of the Government. I foresee too many question-mark-shaped clouds overhanging the assembled fleet in the Firth later this year.
For example, there is the issue of convoys. I still sometimes hear hon. Members opposite urging the Government Front Bench to recognise in naval policy the traditional rôle of shepherding convoys round the world. How realistic is this in the context of the modern technological age, in the context of nuclear potentiality? The Government Front Bench, whatever the pressures on it, should come clean sooner or later about where it stands vis-à-vis this concept.
Then there is the issue of "Ark Royal"—one aircraft carrier in spend id isolation. What does this meaningfully add up to in the overall context of our naval policy?
Then there is the issue of the through-deck cruisers. We on this side of the

House are disturbed by the rumours and stories of escalating costs. Some have suggested that these vessels may be as much as £75 million apiece. But I worry much more that the Government may make the same mistake with the through-deck cruisers as they have found themselves trapped in with the one remaining aircraft carrier. If the through-deck cruisers are to add up to a viable contribution to the Navy, it will be essential to have at least three of them operational. I wonder whether the Government have thought this through, or whether they have vaguely in mind the possibility of leaving construction at the initial through-deck cruiser.
I come to the issue of the Harriers. The Minister tried to be helpful tonight, but, although he came tantalisingly close to making a definite statement, there is still an element of doubt overhanging their future. He will realise that I say this in no spirit of animosity, but there is considerable anxiety in the Fleet Air Arm, which is affecting morale, about what the future is to be in terms of flying capability with the Navy.
In one of the visits which I have been able to make, kindly facilitated by the Minister's predecessor, I was struck by the difference in morale between the rotary-wing flyers and the fixed-wing flyers. We need to take this matter on board very seriously.

Mr. Buck: Having recently come back from "Ark Royal", I have encountered that. But what the hon. Gentleman said about "Ark Royal" will not have done much to help morale in the Fleet Air Arm.

Mr. Judd: I think that it will, because the intelligent men in the Fleet Air Arm want to know what the long-term strategic planning for it is. They want firm assurances about their future rôle.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It is music to my ears that, I gather, the Opposition's policy is to urge the Government to construct three of these new cruisers and encourage flying and seaborne air power. It is not many years since the Opposition, when in Government, cancelled the CVAO1. If they had not done so, we could by now have had a splendid new aircraft carrier.

Mr. Judd: We owe the men of the Fleet Air Arm reassurance about their future. We can no longer allow uncertainty about the policy. It would be helpful if the Government clarified the situation one way or the other.
There is the issue of the commando ships, essential to the work of the Royal Marines. Most people would agree that at least two of them are vital if they are to provide amphibious reinforcements on the northern and southern flanks of NATO. Only the Americans, apart from ourselves, have such amphibious ships. HMS "Bulwark" is known to be on her last legs, although her devoted crew have produced remarkable results in manoeuvres over the past year, and we pay tribute to them. It is an open secret that she is known in the Navy as HMS "Rusty Bucket".
What is to replace her? Are the Government thinking that perhaps one of the through-deck cruisers might replace her? If so, I find that unconvincing because, even supposing the Government were to decide to go ahead with the three through-deck cruisers, they would all be needed to provide maritime support for the Navy. I do not see how one could occasionally be allocated for this rôle. I commend to the Minister the suggestion which is being canvassed in some quarters that it would perhaps be possible to design a new ship on mercantile lines— something like a container ship hull fitted with a flight deck which could be built fairly cheaply.
There is also the issue of the future of minesweeping operations. We need clarification from the Government for this particularly affects the Royal Naval Reserve and the question of its morale. It has been noted that minesweeping experiments are being done by hovercraft and helicopters. The men of the Royal Naval Reserve need to be reassured about what the Government have in mind, particularly in the light of what is going on in Haiphong harbour under American supervision in connection with mine-clearing by helicopters.
I come to the question of the seaborne nuclear deterrent. Not many of us on this side of the House were altogether reassured in the defence debate earlier this week. Apart from the critical issue of safety in handling our Polaris missiles raised by my hon. Friend the Member

for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on which no satisfactory reply has been forthcoming, the Opposition cannot emphasise too strongly their concern at the apparent drift towards irrevocable commitment to a second generation nuclear deterrent, be it Poseidon, Trident or the under-sea long-range missile system, without evidence of clearly thought out major policy direction and decisions.
In the debate the other night I mentioned the implications of the first round of the strategic arms limitation talks in this respect: on the one hand, the argument that the ceiling on anti-ballistic missiles has given Polaris a new lease of life, but, on the other hand, firm pronouncements by the Russians that any extension of our nuclear capability will be regarded as an extension of the American capability. If the Government are committed to disarmament, are they contemplating embarrassing the United States' nogotiators for a questionable future development in our own deterrent? What are our intentions in a West European context? My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) mentioned this matter in the debate earlier this week, but no reply has been forthcoming.
When the Secretary of State talks at the Conservative Party conference about the possibility of an Anglo-French deterrent he attracts attention. It is no good Ministers prevaricating in their responses. We need a clear answer. The Opposition are firmly against the development of an Anglo-French deterrent in any form. But in the issue of nuclear strategy we must, above all, have clear-cut decisions because they are essential not only to naval strategy but to our whole defence strategy within the context of NATO.
Before I leave this critical subject I want to put one other question to the Minister about a statement made on 30th July last year by the Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Navy. He is reported to have said that Soviet submarine, surface and air anti-submarine forces can detect and utterly destroy any submarine in all weather conditions. A categorical comment from the Minister about that claim from the Russian C-in-C would be helpful.

Mr. Buck: That statement, which I think was made by Admiral Gorshkov, seems to be nonsense.

Mr. Judd: We note that, and I am sure that the Russians will have noted it. It is a pity that we did not have a stronger comment earlier.
Last year we had an interesting debate in our analysis of defence programmes in which, speaking from this Dispatch Box, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) dwelt on the importance of submarines. May I interject a word of gratitude to my hon. Friend? Whatever profound differences we may have had on certain aspects of policy while he was the Minister responsible for the Navy, I as a Member of Parliament with a dockyard constituency, found that he always treated my problems with the utmost courtesy, attention and speed. In opposition we found him a thoughtful and stimulating spokesman. Since he has returned temporarily to the back benches, in his book and in his work on the Select Committee he is still making a profoundly important contribution to defence discussion.
In the debate last year my hon. Friend referred to submarines. This year the Government have announced their intention to move forward with the submarine building programme, but I am not sure that it is on a scale to convince my hon. Friend that the basic policy decisions have been made as he would like them to be made.
In that debate we also spoke of torpedoes, and the Minister has mentioned them tonight. They have had a chequered history in recent years in the Royal Navy. We are glad to know that at last the Mark 24 submarine-launched anti-submarine torpedo is in production, and that delivery of the American Mark 26 lightweight torpedo will soon start. We must reserve judgment on their success until we have seen them in operation for a while.
Last year the Opposition dwelt on the possibility that there was too much reliance in Government strategy on large ships, which we sometimes think have the attributes in a modern context of sitting ducks. What we have heard this year has not been altogether reassuring. A modern Navy serving the interests of Britain and NATO needs maximum flexibility and maximum versatility. We are worried that the Navy may be becoming technologically muscle-bound or over-computer-orientated. I have heard it said by

someone who shall be nameless that in the immediate future when a submarine surfaces and the skipper looks out through his binoculars and understands from computerised information that he is on the Equator but sees an iceberg and a polar bear on the horizon he will say "That damned computer ". But the question we have to ask ourselves is whether in 15 years' time he might say "What was I drinking last night?" We have to question a little the impact of modern technology on the self-reliance of seamanship, which is tremendously important in the final analysis.
One sometimes wonders how a ship can have any buoyancy after all the boffins have added their pet refinements. To quote again from the Financial Times in an article last November the Controller of the Navy, Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin said: —
This means that we have to be careful to produce ships which are not over-specialised for a particular operational task which may change or even disappear during the lifetime of the ship.
On equipment, we notice that the Exocet equipment has been delivered and that its first missiles are due soon. We also note that the Anglo-French Martel air-to-surface anti-ship guided weapon is being introduced into the Bucanneer squadron on HMS "Ark Royal". We shall have to watch this carefully in operation. It is a nice point of balance between buying, on economic and engineering criteria, abroad and the need to maintain our own technological industry to back the defence services.
On recruiting, we are glad that the Navy has done well in the past year. The only question we ask is: what will be the effects of keeping pay in the Services in line with the Pay Code on recruiting. Are the Government confident that there will be no adverse effects?
I have had the good fortune to see a certain amount of naval training in the past year, and I have been very impressed. We should all express our appreciation for the staff who handle the training, but there is the issue of the considerable changes in curriculum which have been taking place in Dartmouth in recent years. Is it yet possible to make an evaluation of their impact on leadership and officer effectiveness within the Service?
I should like to say a word or two on discipline. I understand the White Paper's discreet silence on the naval catering fraud case. I do not want to turn over that sad story, which is all the more sad because of our almost unlimited respect for the Navy, but a number of serious issues are at stake. One is: how could fraud have happened on that scale throughout the length and breadth of the country for so long? Another is: why had senior officers not spotted earlier that there was something wrong? Can we be confident that the weaknesses that the case revealed in financial relations with private contractors are limited to catering? I know that an inquiry is going on. We are looking forward to the results of that inquiry and shall want to discuss them fully.
On welfare, we are glad that we can soon expect the report of the Seebohm Committee. Some of us feel that more attention should be paid to the welfare of officers' families. As soon as the Seebohm Report comes out it will be appropriate for the House to have a full discussion on it.
There is also the issue of Service land. Speaking as a Member for a dockyard constituency, I know that in some dockyard towns there is an acute shortage of land for housing, recreational facilities and other social amenities. It is aggravating when the view gains ground that the Navy has at its disposal more land than is absolutely essential. I hope that this will be watched carefully.
I should like to add a brief word on the yards about which the Minister spoke. The Labour Government's concern for the wellbeing of the yards was demonstrated by their introduction of the new pay structure. The advances made through that pay structure must not be allowed to fall behind again.
There are problems within the yards. There is a need for an opportunity for construction in the yards so that the repair work can be kept in harmony with the new style of shipbuilding. We also have to look at industrial accidents within the yards, on which there are some warning indicators. We must keep the incentive bonus scheme under scrutiny. While it is all right for some of the men employed in the yards, it is not always convincing as an appropriate system for

yards which handle repairs as distinct from production work. There are also sometimes resentments among men who are employed on work where the bonus scheme cannot be applied. We must also recognise that there are doubts amongst labour forces about work being put out to contract and the criteria used when decisions to do so are made.
As for the morale of the workers in the yards, there are doubts and anxieties about the degree of emphasis on preplanning in yard work and work measurement. At times the men in the yards express to me the feeling that front-line workers are being expected to carry increasingly top-heavy administration.
Part of the problem is concerned with communication and with explaining new systems to workers, but I suspect that there is a good deal of justification for criticism. Difficulties in communications can result from the fact that yards are impersonal in scale, and when the men come to negotiate about their problems they often feel that at local yard level they are not talking to the people who have the real responsibility. Behind the individual yard lies Bath, behind Bath lies the Ministry of Defence, Whitehall, behind the Ministry of Defence, Whitehall, lies the Treasury, and behind the Treasury lies No. 10 Downing Street. It will be helpful if the Minister can give us his comments about firm recommendations on the yards contained in the Ninth Report from the Expenditure Committee and can assure us that the Government are seeking ways of decentralisation. The more responsibility local management has the more the workers will be able to realise that he is talking to those who have the power of decision.
I now turn to the subject of civilian employees in other naval establishments. In the past year there has been a deep sense of grievance, since civilian workers undertaking similar work to that which is done in the yards are denied, by as much as several pounds, the same level of pay as their dockyard colleagues because in certain establishments bonus schemes do not operate as they do in the yards. There is a jungle of confused pay rates in defence establishments, and the Government could do a good deal to rationalise the system.
In conclusion, I want to draw attention to the urgent need for a more coherent


maritime strategy for NATO as a whole, especially in the light of possible mutually balanced force reductions, which might later be extended to cover balanced naval withdrawals in the Mediterranean. This is all the more important when we recognise that a political approach to such balanced naval withdrawal was made in June 1971 by Mr. Brezhnev, who proposed mutual naval cuts in the Mediterranean. This poses the possibility of the withdrawal of American carriers of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean or their run-down, which could leave NATO's southern flank even more open. Clearly NATO must be concerned about its vulnerability in the south. Its limited air defence is mainly deployed north-east, towards Moscow, in support of allied ground forces. There is little facing south, towards Syria or Egypt or elsewhere on the North African coast, should Soviet influence extend there.
We on this side of the House desperately want disarmament through mutually balanced force reductions to succeed, but to achieve this we need to be clear on our present strategy overall, including the Mediterranean. The issue is complicated by the totally undemocratic and, in the final analysis, unreliable régime in Greece and the disturbing political developments in Turkey.
Naval matters have been badly neglected in overall strategy, but they are no less vital than those issues raised in the context of possible nuclear escalation discussed by the nuclear planning group in NATO. The lack of comprehensive policy could almost call into question the seriousness with which the Government approach mutually balanced force reductions. How can we make meaningful progress if we are not clear where we stand at the start? How do the Government reconcile their decision to become a continental Power with their decision to maintain their independent thin grey line around the world? How much influence do a few British ships, scattered about the oceans, have? Do the Government fail to see that their military and naval involvement with Portugal—and their, at best, ambiguous military and naval relationship with South Africa—serve to provoke the spread of Communist influence by driving those struggling for their

freedom into a heavy dependence on Communist support?
Conservative Members urge extension of NATO activity into the South Atlantic. Nothing could be more disastrous and counter-productive than to do this on the basis of co-operation with repressive reactionary régimes both in Latin America and in Southern Africa.
By contrast, what steps are being taken to secure greater NATO—and indeed Commonwealth—support for a more effective and extended Beira patrol? It is interesting to contrast the dedicated service by men on this patrol with preparations here at home for a jamboree to celebrate 600 years of alliance with dictatorial Portugal, the principal subverter of the Government's policy towards Rhodesia—a situation which would be ludicrous if it were not so grave. I fear that it is all too characteristic of contradictions in Government thinking.
I started with a tribute to the men and women of the Navy and the civilian employees who support them. They are people who take pride in their effectiveness. In these debates we must see to it that the political framework within which these men and women are asked to serve is worthy of that unrivalled loyalty which they so steadfastly display.

8.25 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: I am glad to be called to speak after the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), since we both represent dockyard towns, but I dissociate myself from his final remarks. He had made an excellent speech until the last few minutes.
Since this is a short debate I shall concentrate on two points. The first concerns HMS "Albion". Is it to be scrapped or not? When it is converted into a Commando carrier it was considered that she was a more comfortable ship and better equipped than HMS "Bulwark". However, I understand that HMS "Bulwark" will remain operational until 1978 when the proposed through-deck cruiser should be available. Cannot both these ships be retained? They are both invaluable to the Royal Navy.
I turn to the subject of the Royal Naval dockyards. A great deal is said


about them in the two important documents with which we are dealing in this debate. On page 32 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, Cmnd. 5231, the Government say:
The Royal Dockyards will be heavily loaded during 1973–74 …".
There is then reference to the backlog of work outstanding from 1972–73. I should like seriously to consider the situation thrown up by this backlog of work because, regrettably, we have undergone a major strike for the first time in 300 years. It was not just a question of increased pay; there were other questions which worried the men. I attended a strike meeting and I should like to explain my impressions.
I consider that the time has come when the Admiralty must realise that it is dealing with thousands of educated men and women—and I emphasise that we now have girl apprentices in the dockyards. The workers who operate in the dockyards in these days are very different from those who worked in the dockyards in previous years. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West that there should be further cooperation between management and staff.
One important matter which must be borne in mind is the monotony of work in the dockyards. This is a serious problem, which applies not only to work in motor car factories, for example. It is very much a human problem. People need to be noticed, and to be appreciated; they need to feel that they are not just cogs in one great impersonal machine. This aspect presents obvious difficulties in a large organisation such as a dockyard. Today, too many industrial organisations relegate the individual to a position of total insignificance during working hours. We have to overcome this problem in the future.
When the Mallabar Report—Command Paper 4713—was published, I hoped that many changes would be made, and I regret that very few have been undertaken to date. For that reason I was extremely interested to read the Recommendations in Command Paper 5245, and I should like to refer to some of them.
Recommendation 9 I support entirely. However, in my view paragraph b. is not very satisfactory. It says that the length of time for which a ship is required is

agreed between the dockyard department and the Naval Staff one to two years before the start of a refit, after taking into account the size of the work package. That is a long time ahead, and situations change. I should like to know whether we could not have more accurate forecasting, which would mean that we should get fewer Supplementary Estimates in respect of various ships.
Recommendation 10 says:
The date for the establishment of a trading fund for the Royal Dockyards should be brought forward.
Observation a. contains another stalling reply. It says:
Thirdly, the staff concerned will need a training/trial period of managing under the new system of budgeting and financial control before the Parliamentary system of vote control can be changed in favour of a trading fund system.
This was recommended three years ago. We should have got further than this. In paragraph b. the observation says:
A pilot system of operating accounts will be in operation during 1973–74 …".
It is unfortunate that it has been impossible to do what is suggested sooner. If private enterprise yards were run as the Royal dockyards are run they would be broke, or would become another "lame duck" in no time. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into this matter.
The observation on Recommendation 11 is unfortunate. It says that no current construction is going on in the Royal dockyards. I suggest that there should be some construction. It is essential for morale, and to encourage initiative—and Devonport especially has facilities for shipbuilding. Some ships should be built in the yards. I realise that the Admiralty puts a number of new constructions outside because it wishes to help the unemployment situation in other areas, but times have changed, and I feel that the Royal dockyards should have their share and should not just be repairing yards.
In my view Recommendation 12 should be put into action as soon as possible. In many debates I have advocated the abolition of the distinction between industrial and non-industrial civil servants in the Royal dockyards and the ROFs. They should all be civil servants. I hope, too, that the Government will maintain their intention of giving equal pay to women by 1975.
I should like to know how much progress has been made with regard to paragraph c. of the observation, which says:
In addition, it has been agreed with the trade unions that there should be early joint consideration of differences on sick pay, deductions of pay for lateness, on-call and re-call payments, and payments of travelling and subsistence allowances.
When will action be taken? The paragraph simply says that "it has been agreed".
The Mallabar Committee was not very complimentary about the Royal Dockyards. It did not seem to take into account the fact that, unlike the ROFs, the dockyards' obligations compare with those of a fire service. A ship may need immediate repairs. What is more, there is not the satisfaction that there is in the ROFs, of engaging in new manufacturing work. That is why I again plead that Devonport and other Royal dockyards should build ships. The "Scylla", an outstanding success, was built at Devonport.
Are the unions kept fully informed both with regard to the future work programme and any organisational changes? I suspect that they are not kept as fully informed as they should be, and that is unfortunate.
The top structure should also be looked at. The Mallabar Committee recommended more civilian management. Why have not more men in the Royal dockyards been given the opportunity to train for managerial jobs? Without meaning any disrespect to the general managers, I must say that it is unfortunate that many of them are naval officers in mufti, and because they come from a disciplined force they have had little or no chance to deal with trade unions and industrial relations.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has come to his job with no preconceived ideas. I hope that he will make it his task to see that men who have worked in the Royal dockyards for a number of years have the opportunity to take managerial jobs rather than having others superimposed upon them. I am not suggesting that it is the fault of either section; it is the present system.
Flag officers have quite enough other work to do, and the general managers who now take the place of the admiral

superintendents should be allowed to stay more than two or three years. How can anyone be expected to run a big concern when in the first year he has to learn, in the second he may do some constructive work, and is then likely to go? No business can be run on those lines.
I advocate more promotions from the ranks and more continuous service in the top jobs. It appears to me that that is the only way to make progress, given some stabilisation of the work force.
To sum up, in my view there are far too many separate bosses with insufficient local powers. The general manager has no direct authority for the recruitment, promotion or dismissal of non-industrial staff. The naval authorities may specify the department to which a naval officer is posted. That is rather difficult for all concerned. A general manager has limited purchasing authority—namely, under £1,000, except locally for contracts up to £2,000. It was proposed by Mallabar that a general manager be given power to order up to £5,000, but that has not been implemented.
Having studied the Mallabar Report, all I can do is to congratulate all those concerned in the dockyards for the first-class jobs which they have produced despite many difficulties. However, is not it time that some of the work force should be able to rise from the ranks and that these jobs should not always be held by people, however able they may be, brought in from outside?
I am not knocking Navy personnel. They act in their several capacities and we need them for liaison activities between the yards and naval requirements. Of course, specialists such as engineering electrical engineering officers are still needed, and they do their jobs splendidly, but they should do what they are required to do and should not become involved in administrative work. Flag officers need to be relieved of their dual duties. General managers should be given more power, and should stay for at least five years.
During the 18 years in which I have been in this House I have tried to get changes. The Mallabar Report of July 1971 does not appear to have led to any radical changes to the dockyards. I welcome the extra money which is being spent on material changes such as new


buildings, and I hope that some of the Mallabar Report's wise proposals, and the suggestions put forward by the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee will be enacted in the near future.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I followed the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) in the defence debate last week and, by a happy coincidence, I follow her again tonight. I thought that she made a good speech last week, but she has made a better one this week.
We are a maritime nation. Therefore, the Navy is a national institution. Any man who becomes a Minister for the Navy is a fortunate man. The Undersecretary of State's first task in office was to go in a minesweeper off the North-East coast of England—in fact, off the coast of Yorkshire. That is where the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and myself—we happen to be chairmen of our respective fisheries committees— had a joint excursion in the minesweeper "Letterston" a year or two ago. On that occasion the sea was like a mill-pond and there was no need to take pills of any kind.
The Under-Secretary of State listened last week with assiduous attention to my speech. Unfortunately, he did not speak and hence could not answer the points I made. I do not intend to inflict upon him the identical speech this week. However, I shall embark upon the same theme, as I happen to represent not a naval dockyard, like many hon. Members present, but a distinguished fishing port. If tributes are being paid tonight to sailors, I pay tribute to the deep-sea fishermen, who are amongst the kindest people in the world, and the most intrepid, as they work in the depths of the Arctic in temperatures of 10, 20 and 30 degrees below zero.
My speech is really an addendum to what I said last week. I speak for fishermen and not naval personnel. I suggest that, although there would be a Navy, it would not be such a good Navy if we had no fishermen. Our minesweepers would be a jolly sight worse in times of war if we did not have fishermen to man them, as we have had in so many of our difficult times.
Page 16 of the White Paper deals with the NATO area, and paragraph 21 refers to the Icelandic fishing dispute. It is an important exercise in the North Atlantic. Paragraph 21 says:
In addition to normal patrols to distant water fishing grounds, frigates of the Fleet have been available since September 1972 in case they are needed to protect and assist British trawlermen in the disputed fishing grounds off Iceland.
These grounds are indeed disputed; there has been a dispute for some years. Many of us take sides. I hasten to add that we in the Opposition have supported the Government so far in what they have done. The Opposition are with the Government in this. I say that to forestall any misapprehension about what I shall say later. I would point out, incidentally, that I am speaking tonight only because I got no answer to my speech in the defence debate.
Today the Foreign Secretary gave us the best news since September. He said that the British ambassador at Reykjavik, accompanied by two senior officials from Whitehall, will have discussions with the Icelandic Government in Reykjavik tomorrow. The right hon. Gentleman said that these discussions would not be negotiations but were designed to pave the way for ministerial negotiations, which he hoped would be renewed very soon.
I am cautiously optimistic, as I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman somewhat lightheartedly, but I have some cautionary words. I hope with all my heart that talks begin again, but we need an assurance that harassment will cease and that our men will not be subjected to the cutting of warps. Altogether 19 warps have been cut in the last fortnight off Iceland. There is terrific tension in a warp being towed at four miles an hour, and if a warp is cut it flies back like a lash. A German seaman a few weeks ago lost a leg. Indeed, a cut warp could easily decapitate a man.
It is, therefore, very important, if talks begin, that such incidents finish, if only to convince our men that we mean business. I hope that a new spirit has entered into the discussions. But—to change the metaphor—one eider duck does not make a summer and Mr. Josefsson, the Icelandic Minister, is no eider duck. He is not soft anywhere. He is a very hard and tough Fishing Minister for Iceland.


He does not wish to give away too much. We have met him and we know him. All I am saying now is: let us hope that the talks do not collapse. But if, sadly, the talks do collapse we shall be back where we were last week. Iceland has committed itself to a 50-mile limit. All the parties did so at the last General Election in 1972. Indeed, one party advocated going beyond that limit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) mentioned the Santiago talks next year on the law of the sea. I accept the need for proper preparation for these United Nations discussions. We in the fishing ports look upon this issue as being far beyond one of catching fish. This is an international dispute about international limits, and the findings of the International Court at The Hague. It does not just concern developing nations. In this case, Iceland is not even our biggest opponent, because two large, dominant North American Nations—the United States and Canada—want to increase limits not to 20 or 50 miles but to 100 miles. I know that the Minister understands me.
The Government are therefore in a dilemma to know what formula must be put up which will satisfy our fishermen and also lead to a settlement with Iceland. There are such technical questions as the settling of areas for fishing and size of vessels, but any settlement must also combine Iceland's sovereignty with the fact that we still have our fishing rights. With all my heart I hope that we shall get an interim agreement which will carry us through to 1974 and the Santiago conference. Nevertheless it must be remembered that a settlement will take a long time. It will take at least two years from the beginning of the Santiago talks next year, so whatever we settle with Iceland must be for such length of time.
My cautionary word is that if we do not get a settlement tempers will shorten on both sides, provocation—I say this deliberately—will be on both sides, because all the angels are not on the one side; these are very tough deep sea fishermen, and skippers are chafing at the present incidents and harassment. I assume that for the moment the firing of live ammunition will cease.
The Government are willing to negotiate and will begin negotiating, but the industry does not wish the Navy to go in at the moment. There has been some slight lack of agreement within the Action Committee between skippers, deckhands and owners, but they do not want the Navy in at present because that means uneconomic fishing. One vessel shields another, and for their fishing they have to keep to confined areas where they have the protection of a frigate. But the fishing fleet must be assured that if protection is at any time needed the fishermen will get it.
Last week when I asked for a definition of what had been said by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), the Minister, said " The Secretary of State means what he says." I then had to ask "If he says what he means, what does he mean?" The hon. Member replied "He means what he says."
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Navy knows which boats are where. He knows which frigates he has. He spoke earlier of 26 frigates of the "Leander" class and of 22 others in different stations. What the fishermen and the owners wish to know is what naval vessels we have in the North Atlantic to come to their aid in the event of danger or difficulty, or in the unhappy event of the negotiations not being held. Where are these frigates, and what are they doing? Can the Minister guarantee that in the unhappy event that I have mentioned naval vessels will go to the area in sufficient force to look after our people?

8.50 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on his first major speech at the Dispatch Box. I agree with a great deal of what he said. One or two i's need dotting and some t's need crossing, but I hope to raise those matters.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson). I endorse pretty well absolutely everything he said about the Icelandic dispute. I hope that the Government will keep in as close touch with skippers, owners and crew members as they have with all other interests to


ensure that we get the right answer as speedily as possible.
I also endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the fishermen. I have had a great deal to do with them in the course of my career in this House. I have the highest possible admiration for them in all the dangers they face in a most hazardous occupation. It is odd that when they come up against a hazard, instead of knuckling down and going ashore they and their families continue with them.
I wish to mention two points to which the White Paper on Defence pays scant attention. The first concerns the numbers and capability of our escort vessels, and the second relates to the air support that is available to the fleet.
In Volume 1, Chapter I, of "The War at Sea ", the Official Histories Series, Captain S. W. Roskill defines maritime control and, among other things, on page 3 says:
if either control of the air over the sea or control of the water beneath the surface of the sea is inadequate, then we should not possess sufficient control of the communications which pass on its surface.
That may sound a truism. Nevertheless, it is an absolutely essential part of what I consider should be our strategic thinking in the form of naval defence.
If that is true of the Second World War, it is equally true today. We are a maritime nation. We need control of the air, of the sea, and of the water beneath the surface of the sea at least round our own shores and in the sea lanes leading to our ports literally from all over the world.
In my estimation, the Royal Navy is still our first line of defence. According to the White Paper the total strength of our escort and ASW vessels is 62. That should be compared with the operational strength of the USSR submarine fleet. They have 34 attack nuclear submarines and 210 attack diesel submarines, besides which they have 26 nuclear-powered and 26 diesel-powered missile launching submarines. That gives an adverse ratio of escort vessels to submarines of 4:1. If we take into account the European NATO escort vessels the ratio, in adverse terms, is roughly 3:1 against.
It is useful to compare what was happening at the beginning and at a crucial stage of the Second World War. At the outbreak of war in 1939 Germany had 36 operational U-boats. We had 110 escorts of all types which gave us a favourable ratio of escorts to submarines of 3:1. By the quarter ending January 1943 Germany had a total of 393 submarines, of which 212 were operational. At that time we had 413 escort vessels of all types which gave us a favourable ratio of 2:1.
It is of interest to note that just after that date—in fact, in March 1943—the allied shipping losses were the highest of the entire war, with 108 vessels sunk, representing 627,377 gross tons. Without labouring the point, it meant a fantastic loss and, indeed, a waste of life. Even if we were to regard one escort vessel today as being equal in effectiveness to two in 1943, we would still be woefully short on a ratio basis of 3:2 against. There is no room for complacency about the production and introduction of more escort vessels. Indeed, their provision must be stepped up.
What frightens me is the probability that successive Ministers of Defence have adopted that near-fatal doctrine of the between-the-war period when each spring the decision was taken that there was no likelihood of a general war within the next 10 years. This is alarming, to say the least, and I hope that we may be reassured when my hon. Friend replies to the debate.
The danger to our fleet and, indeed, to all our ships does not end with submarines. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies dealing with the military balance 1972–73, the USSR has 450 maritime bombers based on its North-West and Black Sea Coasts, and 140 ASW aircraft similarly disposed. A nation with that number of aircraft and 295 submarines operational cannot be regarded as acting defensively in its strategy. If I may coin a phrase, the Russian bear has mutated itself into being an aquatic animal. On the contrary, bombers and submarines are almost by definition offensive armaments, so we are faced with a threat of enormous magnitude.
What about air support not only for the fleet but for merchant vessels in time


of war? The White Paper, in Chapter 2 on page 17, talking about exercises, refers to "Strong Express"
in which all three Services demonstrated their ability to give support to the northern flank of NATO.
If one thing alone was demonstrated by exercise " Strong Express" it was our inability to provide sufficient air support to the fleet or to the troops when they had gone ashore. All reports which I have seen of that exercise have stressed that very point.
In an admirable article headed 
Defence rôle of seaborne planes
in last Thursday's Daily Telegraph Mr. Desmond Wettern said:
Moscow has, perhaps, become aware that, as our own Fleet Air Arm has long known one squadron of aircraft afloat is comparable to at least four squadrons ashore … if the shore based fighter's tanker becomes unavailable … the whole or part of the operation may well have to be cancelled.
Thus we are laying ourselves open to all sorts of hazards by giving up the use of fixed-wing aircraft by the Royal Navy and handing them back to the Royal Air Force, which in some ways is repeating the mistake that was made between the two wars.
But is there possibly a change taking place in the Minister's thinking? When my hon. Friend replies perhaps he will comment on the statement in Chapter 5 on page 31 of the White Paper where it says:
under a new scheme, selected Royal Navy helicopter aircrew are transferred on temporary loan to the Royal Air Force for training and experience in fixed-wing flying operations.
I hope that means that there has been a change of heart.
When the decision to scrap "Eagle" was announced, I—in common, I am sure, with many other hon. Members on both sides—wrote to my hon. Friend, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, protesting at the decision. He replied to me on 22nd March:
I can assure you that the decision to scrap EAGLE does not reflect any lack of determination to keep the Royal Navy in the forefront of the Western European Navies, with the ability to maintain a presence in, or deploy quickly to, any area in which our national or N.A.T.O. interests are involved. Our current plans are directed to this end, and in the coming years we will, for example, be bringing into service the surface-launched anti-ship guided-missile system EXOCET and new

types of cruisers, destroyers and frigates. This will ensure that we continue to possess a modern and effective fleet of which the Navy, and the nation as a whole, can be proud.
Certainly we are very proud of the Royal Navy, but if we do not give it its tools it certainly cannot do the job.
I have the feeling that the attitude of my hon. Friend's predecessor was a little too complacent, and I hoped that my hon. Friend will not allow me to say that this time next year when we debate the Navy Vote again. A large number of my constituents serve in the Merchant Navy, and I consider that I would be doing less than my duty to them, and indeed to the fishermen of my constituency, if I did not highlight the dangers of the present situation as I see them.
I am glad that my hon. Friend has given us—as does the White Paper—some hope for the through-deck cruiser. If I may, with great humility, I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) when he said that we must have more than one. We must have three at least.

Mr. Judd: What I said was that we needed clarity, that nothing would be more unfortunate than to go for one and not have enough. We need a firm decision one way or the other.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting those words as he did, but I got the distinct impression that he gave the House to understand that he thought we needed more than one.

Mr. Judd: No.

Mr. Baker: I hope that the aircraft for it and its successors will be manned by Royal Navy officers and not by RAF officers.
I should like to refer back to the article in last Thursday's Telegraph which I quoted, because it sums up to a nicety what I have to say. Mr. Wettern says:
In 1945, Germany still had a large U-boat fleet—but long before that the High Command in Berlin had realised that the success of our defences made the cost too great. It is the Navy's task today to make Moscow realise that an attack on our shipping could not be made with total impunity.

9.3 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: This debate, I think, should look both at particular aspects and also at the wider


strategy. The Under-Secretary, whose maiden speech in his job we all appreciated, asked the question—and then proceeded to answer it—what was the rôle of the Royal Navy? I was very surprised that he chose as his first priority for the Navy the keeping open of the maritime trade links.
Inadvertently, the Under-Secretary may have given support to those of his hon. Friends who are, I believe mistakenly, constantly pressing a rôle for the Royal Navy which is not its primary function— a convoy rôle. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) emphasised the need for more escort vessels and kept calling in aid experience in the Second World War.
I am convinced that there is a need, now more than at any time in our maritime history perhaps, for us to re-think the rôle of the Royal Navy. None of us has an easy answer to it, but I am certain that any major war in which Britain is likely ever to be involved which has a maritime content will be a type of maritime war very different from anything we have experienced hitherto.
I believe that the Royal Navy's primary rôle is to maintain and sustain the strategic deterrent. I have no doubt that this is an onerous task. It is exacting on the men who serve in the Polaris submarines and on those who service, repair and refit them. They work to a very tight schedule and for long hours. They deserve our thanks for a job quietly done, a job of deterrence.
It is also an important part of the Navy's rôle to preserve that deterrent as invulnerable, to give it anti-submarine cover to be able to ensure that Polaris submarines can leave from naval bases undetected and untracked by enemy submarines. That is a very important function, which is easy to forget.
The second major rôle is to pose the threat that if in a period of tension a maritime incident were to occur, this country, particularly as a member of NATO, is able to match any such maritime incident with a credible response and to match it in a maritime environment; in effect, to be able to retain conventional weapons at sea and to be able to choose the occasion and the way in which we match any maritime response to our own advantage.
It cannot be emphasised too much, particularly to hon. Members on the Government benches, that a credible response does not always have to occur in the same area. If, for instance, in a period of hostilities, the Soviet Union was rash enough to interfere with tankers either sailing round the South African cape or coming around Singapore we would choose to match such an escalation at a time and a place of our choosing, at a place where we reckoned that we were the strongest. It is a foolish maritime strategy which feels that it has to stretch its resources to match any escalation exactly at the point of escalation. That was a necessary attitude in the days of gunboats, of no communications, and before the technology of satellite reconnaissance, which has brought a totally new environment for modern warfare.
I say no more about that, but those two rôles, both within NATO, are the primary function. The maritime world-wide trade convoys and escorts are outdated concepts.
In looking at how one is to match any escalation, one has to look very critically at that question. I do not intend to go into the arguments which I have often raised, both inside and outside the Ministry of Defence, about the balance of the Fleet. It is profoundly wrong. Many naval officers believe that to be so. The Navy should not be entirely an underwater navy. That would be most foolhardy. There will always be a need for frigates, the work force of the Royal Navy. That will always be an important function. The balance, however needs to be shifted. It has not been shifted. The Government have been criticised in many areas by many different people on this issue. I only hope that the Admiralty Board will not remain as intransigent as it is currently.
The Expenditure Committee has been given access to forward expenditure figures. I cannot reveal figures, but I hope that we shall be able to publish them in a report. But looking at the forward expenditure figures, one sees that there has been no shift in priorities, no change, no significant increase, no dramatic decision to spend on an underwater submarine-launched guided weapon. We are in the process of feasibility studies, but to my certain knowledge we have been looking at this matter since 1967. We must


totally change our research and development priorities to give this project the highest priority. Sacrifices may have to be made elsewhere in the defence budget. I would be prepared also to make sacrifices in the Navy budget to do this.
There is a slight increase in overall submarine costs, but we anyway are now building rather more expensive submarines—hunter-killer submarines. There is no evidence that the build rate has been increasing.
I have said enough on this subject. I believe that the admirals are living in an outdated world. They are living behind many of the younger officers in the Navy who are themselves not even experienced in submarines. The surprising thing recently has been to find how many officers who have been trained in gunnery and surface ships recognise that the nuclear powered submarine is a completely new dimension in naval warfare and is also the best anti-submarine weapon. They are becoming increasingly worried about the vulnerability of larger ships
The decision as regards the cruiser is the hardest decision the Government must make. It was first to be ordered in February 1972. Those hon. Members opposite who pressed the case of the "Ark Royal" should know that one of the consequences of that decision has been a year's delay in the ordering of the cruiser. The cost of the cruiser seems to have risen by about 50 per cent. since we were in government. This is a large amount.
It may still be necessary for the Navy to have it. It will depend, however, on having a flexible function—primarily ASW, with the ability to deploy the Sea King helicopters, marginally command and control, marginally VSTOL, one important additional rôle being the ability to combat marines and to give amphibious lift. When the time comes to replace the existing commando carriers we shall not be able to afford the cost of building anew. It must have the ability to lift a commando in emergency and overcrowded conditions. This will be an important function which the cruiser can undertake.
If the cruiser had VSTOL aircraft aboard, perhaps more if it was conduct-

ing an amphibious operation, at the expense of Sea King helicopters, they would be able to provide very useful back-up support for any amphibious operation.
I do not believe that an amphibious operation will take place on the northern flank, nor in the southern area of the Mediterranean. A strongly held but, I believe, mistaken NATO belief is that it will have an important rôle to play. An amphibious lift capability is more a function in the rôle of peacekeeping world wide.
I have always believed that the Marines should diversify from being totally dependent on amphibious lift and their links with the Royal Navy and seagoing. They should, as they have done, specialise in cold weather warfare—an important new Marine function. They should remain highly trained and flexible troops. They have an excellent recruiting record. They have a wonderful record in Northern Ireland. It is a corps that we cannot do without. The Marines would be unwise, however, to stick too rigidly to their old rôle. Their role, too, will have to change; and they should change with it.
The Ninth Report of the Expenditure Committee made very serious criticisms of the Royal Dockyards. I do not think that the Government's reply was anywhere near satisfactory. The last year has been a sad one for the Royal Dockyards. We had the first major strike, as the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) said, in almost 300 years of the dockyards' history. Many people whom I deeply respect did not believe that the strike was justified, and many harsh things were said during the strike.
However, one fact which must be faced is that when the strike went to arbitration the arbitrators found essentially in favour of the men. We now have another strike action taking place, this time in the non-industrial work force. These people are in the Civil Service and are deeply upset about the way they are particularly affected by phase 2 of the prices and incomes policy. I have always supported a prices and incomes policy, both in government and out of it, but I believe that the Government's rigidity and inflexibility in dealing with the problem of Civil Service pay—and many


civil servants work in Navy establishments in my constituency—is little short of scandalous. There is a need to recognise that they are a special case, and that their pay claim is essentially a catching-up exercise. Quite rightly they were prepared to accept, as most people in the country have been, a six-month freeze, but they expected and they have every right to expect a far greater degree of flexibility in the way that the Government deal in the next six months with what is essentially a pay claim that takes account of the way that other wages have risen in the last two years.
The other major objection that was raised in the Expenditure Committee report on the dockyards concerned the reversal of the previous Government's policies of civilianising the management of the dockyards. The Government have not replied to the Committee's report but I hope that they will. Not only was the Chief Executive of the dockyards replaced by a former naval officer—and I make no criticism of the man—but the appointments of general managers of major dockyards are going to former naval officers. I have no "beef" against them as naval officers, but these are highly industrialised establishments, where one of the key problems is dealing with industrial relations, getting greater productivity and better management, and if we want naval officers to do these jobs we should recognise that they should go into the dockyards early enough in their career, that they should be trained, that they should go into outside industry and have the knowledge of what is one of the Government's largest single industries— the four naval dockyards.
The second point made by the Expenditure Committee was the urgent need—to use the Committee's own words—of abolishing the distinction between industrials and non-industrials. I cannot urge this strongly enough upon the Minister. It has been recommended by successive reports—the Prices and Incomes Board report and the Mallabar Report—and strongly endorsed by an all-party Committee in this House. The reply that negotiations are going on is not good enough. It is an anomaly in this day and age that there should be this distinction when one man is separated from other members of his family merely because

he is classified as industrial and they are classified as non-industrial. This situation calls for an urgent and necessary change.
Another aspect I wish to deal with is the need for construction in the Royal dockyards. This is important for training of apprentices and for morale. Everybody expects that major new construction building will go on in private yards, and this is necessary. We understand the unemployment problems in areas other than our own constituencies, but if the Navy is to retain sufficient expertise in its yards, as the Expenditure Committee report indicates, it should have the yardstick of new construction and be able to compare its performance with that of outside yards.
The other aspect of the dockyards which needs to be looked at is the overall pay structure. We must never allow the situation to occur again, which was largely redressed in two significant pay rises in 1969 and 1970, where dockyard workers and Government industrial workers generally are paid less than people in comparable industry outside. We need to restore the position and maintain it so that people believe that to work in Government industry is to have a fine and well-paid job. Only then will the Navy and the Services get the speed, efficiency and extra productivity urgently needed in the dockyards. We also need to see the productivity deal greatly expanded.
Another major criticism in the Expenditure Committee Report was of the interference in the fixing of a productivity index for the Civil Service. It is an intolerable situation when management of the dockyards is not able to determine its own productivity agreements. This is a major issue and they should be given that degree of managerial freedom, particularly if we are to insist on managerial accountability.
The Navy has made a mistake not to go for the mini-Sea Dart in frigates and smaller ships and to have the logistic back-up and support of the Sea Dart system throughout. It has made the decision to go for the Sea Wolf. The escalation cost for this has again been sharply criticised in the Expenditure Committee Report. Ministers are in possession of the facts. They should not be afraid to cut this project off if the escalation cost continues. I am concerned that they do


not have sufficient confidence in it and why they do not think it an absolute necessity to put Sea Wolf into the new cruisers.
If the cruisers are built let us not have the situation which we had with the Type 82 when it was a "one-off" job. Let us make no mistake about it—if the country decides to build cruisers we need a minimum of three. This is heavy expenditure. Within the expenditure limitations of the Navy there has been a quite disgraceful case of single-Service lobbying on the part of the Navy in raising the issue of going for Poseidon at this stage. I will not go into this in great detail now. Yes, single-Service lobbying! The Minister should not look shocked or aghast. The situation whereby the Navy approached a NATO ally navy in the way that has been done is very damaging to relations between the two countries and to relations between the two Ministries of Defence. This issue is being looked at by the Select Committee of which I am a member, and I do not intend to pursue it further.
The Minister should recognise that the ABM limitation agreement in SALT is of major significance, and there is in my view now no urgency. Even so, the House ought to recognise that to ask for Poseidon is to ask for extra spending on the Navy of the value of around £400 million over the next five or six years. That will greatly stretch the Navy budget and demand great sacrifices elsewhere. I wish that we had all day to debate this major subject, as is normal. However, we understand the reasons for the debate being shortened today.
I cannot end without thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) for the kind words he said. All I can say is that knowing his great interest in the Navy in his own constituency I could not have wished for anyone better to take over my former position. I thought he performed the task most admirably.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the Front Bench speakers wish to begin at about a quarter past ten. That leaves about 55 minutes. I believe that another eight hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I hope that those who catch my eye will show a degree of unselfishness.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: This debate has been most uncontentious and constructive, in spite of the stark facts facing us. In the foreword of Jane's Fighting Ships it was said:
The stark truth is that the strength of the Royal Navy has fallen below the safety level required to protect the home islands, to guard the ocean trade routes for the world-deployed British mercantile marine (still the largest in the world) and to protect the vast commercial and financial interests overseas".
These sentiments were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker). He was right to do this. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary upon his new appointment. He has shown, in spite of the difficulties we are facing, that he will be positive in his approach. That is absolutely right. My main regret about the Navy is that certain major strategic decisions have been postponed.
The first is obviously on the strategic delivery system to follow Polaris A3 and, secondly, the importance of deciding now to deploy VSTOL on the through-deck cruisers. The project definition stage has taken an inordinately long time. Everyone knew the capabilities of the aeroplane perfectly well, and the fact that the Royal Navy had not yet got it has made it much harder for Hawkers to sell the Harrier as a naval aircraft. I urge my hon. Friend to do something about this as soon as possible, because it should be embarked on "Hermes" in the close support role, until we get a proper naval version, with radar, in the late 1970s.
It is important to realise that the Navy, like the other Services, is suffering very much from the inhibitions which a growing manpower expenditure places upon its equipment programme. Seventy per cent. of the defence budget goes on pay, welfare and allowances, and it is worth recalling that £354 million goes to BAOR —that "tethered goat", as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) calls it—whereas the single largest element of the Navy Vote, on escorts, destroyers and frigates, is only half that sum—£177 million. I have always been a strong believer in a maritime strategy. It is interesting to note that £71 million are devoted to the Reserves of all three Services, but only £4 million go to the Reserves of the Royal Navy. That must


seriously diminish the capability of the Royal Navy to wage protracted war.
In 1961 there were no fewer than 338 vessels in the Reserve Fleet. The figure has dwindled to 37. I can understand the manpower and financial reasons which have led to this situation, but it is grave that in an era of nuclear parity we should be deciding that the next war will not necessarily be protracted at the conventional level. In the same period, from 1961 to 1972, the total number of ships available to the fleet has dropped from 565 to 195, whereas the labour force in Her Majesty's dockyards has stayed virtually the same—in fact, it has dropped by only 400.
Some people would say that with mutual balanced force reductions in the offing the prospects for d·tente are such that we need not be alarmed about the threat at sea. That is not the view of the Economist in its recent review of sea power. It is well worth remembering that sea power does not enter into the computations in MBFR. Whatever the outcome of MBFR the Soviet Union will remain very much a European Power. It has three fleets in the European area—the Baltic, the Black Sea and the Northern, which is the largest fleet, the nearest to us and the most threatening, at Murmansk. We can assume that the Soviet Navy will continue to be very active in western European waters. In the words of the Secretary of State in the other place,
We cannot ignore the fact that as we move into a period of negotiations in Europe, they "—
that is, the Soviet leaders—
continue to build up their military forces to a degree which seems to go beyond any reasonable requirements of self-defence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st March 1973; Vol 339, c. 760.]
Apart from postponing these basic strategic decisions, it is a great pity that we have not made a much larger commitment to our overseas responsibilities, which particularly exercise the Royal Navy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) said, in an article in Jane's Fighting Ships:
Historically Britain has been concerned to maintain the freedom of the seas. All trading nations have relied on the freedom we have won and kept… The strategic protection of Western maritime interests is thus left largely to the USA and Britain. The emergence of

Soviet naval power and its commitment to the spread of Communist influence poses—for the first time in decades—a potential threat against Britain's overseas interests and the stability of the areas in which they exist.
We should not just consider the overt threat of sea power at a military level; we should also consider the political applications to which the Soviet Union can put it. That is specially relevant to the Indian Ocean, which was described in the 1971 Statement on the Defence Estimates as
an area in which the growing Russian naval presence in this area of strategic importance should be regarded as a matter of concern for all neighbouring countries as well as for those countries like Britain who depend for their livelihood upon the trade routes which pass through the Indian Ocean or who have responsibilities or interests there.
We know that the attempt at a Commonwealth approach to this failed. The Indo-Soviet treaty of friendship and the Indo-Pakistan war scuppered that venture, but now we must face the fact that the Brezhnev South Asia security system is well on the way to being achieved and the Russian sphere of influence extends right across to the Bay of Bengal. As I said in last year's debate, these are
transformations of the security situation in the Indian Ocean. From having been a power vacuum, the Indian Ocean could in reality become a Russian lake."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1554.]
On 4th July the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at Jakarta said that the Soviet Union has, on average, between 22 and 25 ships at any one time in the Indian Ocean. It was the arrival of the United States ship " Enterprise " in the Bay of Bengal which had a stabilising effect on the Indo-Pakistan conflict of 1970. We should also remember that, in numerical terms, for the first time the Soviet Union had parity in that area.
The Foreign Minister of Singapore put the situation extremely well when he said that Asia is entering into a new era of ocean politics not in the sense of oceanic wars but in contests for spheres of influence. There is a great danger that the Indian Ocean basin could become a cockpit of great Power competition unless the Western Powers make a real effort to involve themselves.
It is unpalatable, but it must be recognised that the weakness of the British


and other Europeans has made it necessary for the United States to try to redress the balance in this area at the exact time when the United States is trying to diminish its world-wide commitments.
Some would say that the origin of Soviet involvement in the Indian Ocean stems from the time when A3 Polaris missiles were deployed there from 1964 onwards, but the key is the Soviet Union's relations with India. Its relationship with India and its determination to get a position of strategic dominance on the exit to the Arabian Gulf is the key to the whole situation. Russia is now an importer of oil from her treaty partner, Iraq. By 1980, 75 per cent. of the world's oil will be derived from the Gulf. Russia is by no means unmindful of this and she is able to use her sea power extremely effectively.
In the Financial Times yesterday there was a report from Beirut of how Soviet ships assist the gun-running and other subversive activities being undertaken in Oman. The Soviet Union is aware of the potential of Oman as it is of the potential of Baluchistan as an area for subversion and of strategic interest to the West which gets its oil supplies from the Gulf.
The noble Lord, Lord Caccia in the other place tried to bring home the importance of oil supplies to the West. Unless Great Britain, as the major European sea power, is prepared to involve itself not just in the South Indian Ocean but also in the Northern Indian Ocean with its CENTO partners in a practical way, there is grave danger that the Soviet Union will be able to turn off the oil supplies at source by political influence in the producing countries. That is a development which can be at least helped along by Soviet sea power.
It is all very well to have a frigate on station in Hong Kong. It is fine to contribute to the ANZUK force. In spite of what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) says, it is all very well to have a Beira patrol, but it is alarming to see from the White Paper that our presence in the Indian Ocean often amounts only to one frigate on passage. We need a major warship in the area: —I would say an aircraft carrier, with an intervention capability; probably a

through-deck cruiser task force. In other words, the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was right in saying that the best place to deploy aircraft carriers is where there is a paucity of land bases and not a sufficiency—and that is in the Indian Ocean.
I urge my hon. Friends to bear in mind these aspects in planning for the future and to do all they can to increase our good will for and close relationship with our CENTO allies—particularly Iran and Pakistan—and also to do our best to build up their naval capability and the capability of other friendly nations, such as the Arab nations, in this important strategic area.

9.35 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in this important debate. Last Thursday the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) made a most important contribution to our defence debates when he said that because of the confrontation between China and Russia we could drop our guard. I feel very strongly about this matter because the fact that a large number of troops are deployed by Russia and China on the frontier gives us no cause either now or in the future to drop our defence guard. There could be many combinations of association between Russia and China. I shall not go into detail. In war there are some very strange bedfellows, Therefore, because of rivalry between two super-Powers there is no reason to drop our guard.
This debate has underlined the fact that the present system means that NATO and the whole of the Western allies are becoming entirely dependent on our nuclear deterrent. I refer to the four Polaris submarines that we now possess. We cannot help being worried when we look at the tremendous build-up of Soviet naval forces. Indeed, we hear that one naval ship is launched by the Soviet Union every month. One wonders why. Is it for defence or attack, or is it to intimidate the West?
I am worried when I look at the defence White Paper and see the following passage in paragraph 11:
Virtually the whole of the Royal Navy, most of the combat units of the Army and the majority of the combat aircraft of the Royal Air Force are committed to NATO.


This leads me to ask the question: what is left to confront the vast Soviet fleet in the Far East? The answer, so far as we are concerned, would appear to be "Nothing". I appreciate that our forces and naval armaments are limited, but that statement in the White Paper gives cause for considerable worry to Conservative Members, and, I am sure, to many Labour Members.
I turn to the question of Polaris replacement. The decision that must be taken is whether, if we go on with Polaris, we should rely on the United States to supply the necessary equipment to keep the force in operation for its estimated total life of 20 or 25 years, or whether we should replace it with Poseidon or turn direct to Trident. This is the dilemma which the Government face. It seems extraordinary that we should be vying with France as the only other Western Power which possesses a credible nuclear deterrent. I appreciate that there are considerable difficulties involved in any alliance with France, but two friendly Powers united in Europe should be able to reach some agreement on how the two nuclear forces should be used. It may be that France could use her nuclear deterrent as a tactical deterrent whereas we could use ours strategically. It is vital that we decide whether the United States is willing to continue to supply us with Polaris spares at an uneconomic cost, or whether we ourselves should take on the replacements and repairs. I wish to know how France and Great Britain intend to co-operate in this sphere. I feel that there is tremendous scope for sharing defence costs with our European partners, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government have not overlooked it.
The negotiations will be difficult. There are problems of all kinds, including the existence of the special relationship between America and ourselves, with France wanting to remain essentially a national nuclear Power. Overall we have to arrive at an agreement, since we and France' are the only two Powers in Western Europe who possess the deterrent. Now that conventional forces are no longer capable of holding back any form of attack from the Warsaw Pact Powers in Europe, we have to rely more and more on the nuclear deterrent.
We have to look very much more closely at the integration of our treaties with NATO, SEATO and the various alliances. Of course we have different allies in them. But the ultimate objective is peace, and somehow or other we ought to get an alliance between our various treaty relationships.
I hope finally that the Government will make sure that our presence is felt in the Five-Power Pact. It is the only force in the Far East which is capable of resisting what could be a very serious threat from the Soviet Union to peace and to our trade and oil supplies.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. William Small: Normally I am a firm believer in being economical in the use of words. Today is no exception. I shall not detain the House very long.
Let me first comment on the last two speeches which have come from the Government benches. I was interested to hear the degree of pessimism in the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), who seemed to imply that we were still in a cold war situation. In fact, there has been a tremendous psychological change since Kruschev went to America, liked what he saw, and came back. At present capitalist America is feeding the whole of the Soviet Union and is likely to do so again next year. On space, the Nixon-Brezhnev-Kosygin agreement says that there will be no competition in terms of the military use of space. We now see the opportunity for some practical and humanitarian agreement on the Berlin situation. In my view, the outlook for the future is extremely optimistic.
I happen to believe in defence and that external vigilance is required to defend freedom. In political terms the hon. Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) appeared to be in more of a bother than any right hon. or hon. Member who has spoken so far. Either we are European or we are not. In civil terms we are attempting to find an accommodation by means of modern technology, data processing and going supersonic. So we come to Debr· and the role of nuclear France alone.
Debré does not believe in going to the aid of any other nation which is in trouble as we did in 1939 and found ourselves


standing alone. That is not the Debré attitude. So we have to look at whether the French are targeting upon anything and, if so, what.
In this respect the thinking of the other nations of Europe in terms of France can be put roughly this way: the submarines of both countries would be far more effective if they became one force in terms of co-ordination, targeting, patrol missions, joint communications and intelligence, as well as in terms of utilisation and co-operation in maintenance facilities. That is impeccable logic in a modern world and in rational terms.
Someone who may be far cleverer than I am pointed out to me that the national agreement comes up for renegotiation in 1974. That would appear to be the appropriate time to indulge in some cross-fertilisation of requirements.
As this House is all about pressure groups, I turn now to the Minister. He is due to visit Yarrows in my constituency in the very near future. According to a letter which I received today, he is coming on 29th March. He will find that the development of Yarrows is the basic element in warship building on the Clyde. Having represented a Clyde constituency for a number of years, I know how perilously near we have been to heavy unemployment time and time again, and I do not need to remind the House of the Upper Clyde shipbuilding saga. We do not want a repeat of that.
Yarrows is the main supplier of trained labour. I remember when the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies), who is now our man in Europe, opened the covered shipbuilding berth. When he did that he was presented with an umbrella, and the song went up on the Clyde " It ain't gonna rain no more." When the Minister visits my constituency I shall tell him that we are looking for another frigate to be built on the Upper Clyde. He will be entitled to a welcome if he delivers the goods.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: An issue which is causing great anxiety in my constituency is the future of the Royal Navy depot at Copenacre. The depot is virtually the warehouse for the whole of the Navy's requirements of electronic stores. It was moved to Copenacre in 1959. Prior to that it had been

decided to centralise the Navy Stores at Risley in Lancashire. However, that depot proved unsatisfactory for this kind of storage because of the moist atmosphere in that area.
Copenacre was an attractive site because the disused stone quarries at Corsham were ideal for this kind of storage. Office accommodation for clerical staff was built on the surface. Council houses were made available by the local authorities, and ever since 1959 Copenacre has grown.
In 1963 a computer was installed. As recently as 1969 the headquarters of the administrative side were transferred from London to Copenacre, and more office accommodation was built.
It is fair to say that the depot at Copenacre is a model one. Throughout its history there has never been an industrial dispute. Therefore, it was a tremendous shock when an announcement was made on 14th January 1972 that the Government had decided to close both the depot at Copenacre and the depot at Eaglescliffe, in Durham, so that the two depots could be amalgamated at Hartlebury, in Worcestershire.
The Government claimed at the time that these moves would save about £4 million in capital costs. It was also claimed that there would be a substantial saving in running costs due to the concentration of the two depots. However, the Government changed their mind on 10th May 1972 when they decided not to close the depot at Eaglescliffe. That change of mind was due to pressure from local hon. Members, who were able to point out that there was little alternative employment at Eaglescliffe and that the closure would have a serious effect on the economy of the area.
Precisely the same considerations apply to my constituency. The original reasons for joining Copenacre and Eaglescliffe at Hartlebury are now no longer valid. I have repeatedly asked the Minister to look again at the history of this proposal, and I ask him again tonight. I realise that there is the problem of a fire hazard. That has been recognised by everybody who works at Copenacre. That hazard has existed since the depot was started 30 years ago, but no serious fire has ever occurred. My constituents are not prepared to accept that the recognition of a fire hazard implies the


total evacuation of stores and equipment from the quarries.
The Minister will know that the staff side at Copenacre has submitted a detailed case against the closure and has put forward constructive proposals. It has suggested that the stores should be divided into two categories, so that the critical category can be stored above ground and the non-critical underground, in compartmental fireproof areas. It has further suggested that the storage for the critical equipment should be in a new large warehouse. It has even suggested a suitable type of warehouse, with a capacity of 500,000 sq. ft., which can be built for a total sum of £3 million. That would include all necessary services.
I shall not weary the House by recounting the history of correspondence and meetings which have taken place between myself and the previous Minister, but the present Under-Secretary of State will be well aware of all that has taken place. In particular, he will know about the public meeting which was held on 11th January of this year, at which views were expressed by representatives of all political parties, by representatives of the local authorities, and a number of local organisations.
There was a unanimous view deploring the decision of the Minister to close Copenacre, because of its serious and detrimental effect upon the economy of the area and the hardship caused to the people concerned. It seems clear that 800 jobs will be lost in my constituency, and that no compensating work on this scale is available. At present, my constituency has a very good rate of employment, and it would be tragic to change all that.
Why should the loyalty of the staff, built up over 30 years, be cast aside for some unknown cost benefit? Families will be broken up and schooling disrupted—and to what purpose? My constituents are far from convinced that Hartlebury will be a suitable alternative. The facilities there are not as good as those which existed even at Risley, and immense problems of housing and schooling will be created.
Those who work at Copenacre are convinced that they can demolish all the arguments advanced in favour of the

closure. I welcome the decision of my hon. Friend to come to Copenacre on 1st February. I realise that this was a formal visit, in the course of his tour on taking up his new appointment, but I am glad that he took the opportunity to meet the people who live and work at Copenacre. I ask him for an assurance that he is prepared to meet the staff at Copenacre to discuss all the issues involved with a completely open mind.
I am confident that when my hon. Friend has heard all the arguments he will realise that justice can be done only when the decision to close Copenacre is finally revoked. I ask him not to underestimate the profound and genuine depth of feeling that exists throughout my constituency on this issue. This is not just an issue about money and equipment; above all, it is an issue about people and people's lives.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I associate myself with the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) to the personnel of the Royal Navy and the civilian staff and work force who back them up. If I seek out for special mention those who work in naval dockyards, it is not because I have a naval dockyard in my constituency but because many of my constituents work in the nearby dockyards in Rosyth.
I wish to make only two points—the first about the Icelandic fishing dispute, and the second about the policing of waters nearer home.
First, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said, with great wisdom and commonsense, about the Icelandic fishing dispute. Our fishermen do not want intervention in Icelandic waters except as a last resort, but there must be a credible last resort to strengthen our negotiating position in the talks with Iceland, which I hope will come soon.
The Icelanders often put their case in emotive terms, talking of the percentage of their people dependent on fishing. But percentages are not by any means the best way of measuring human values. One Briton dependent on fishing can hardly be given less value than an Icelander dependent on fishing. Indeed, our people in Leith, Grimsby, Hull and


elsewhere who are dependent on fishing can hardly be less than the total population of Iceland—indeed, are probably greater in number. These communities have at least as great a stake in fishing for their livelihood off Iceland as the Icelanders have themselves.
Secondly, I come to the policing of waters nearer these islands. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to reassure the House about the policing of the waters near our oil rigs, which are growing in number with great rapidity in the Continental Shelf waters adjacent to these islands. For obvious reasons, I do not want to go into detail on the problems of policing which could arise in that area, but there will be problems, and they will increase as the number of oil rigs increases.
Are the Government seeing to it that the necessary forward planning is under way and that suitable vessels are available or will be constructed for the task? If specialised vessels are needed, I am sure that Leith can provide them.

9.55 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I start as so many speakers have done by congratulating my hon. Friend on his first appearance in a Royal Navy debate as First Lord of the Admiralty. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), who unfortunately is not at present with us, on some of his comments on the importance to the country of overseas trade, and the importance of defending it adequately. Labour Members seem to have come a long way since their decision to withdraw from east of Suez and the Gulf; and I hope that what we have heard this evening is a genuine repentance and not just the result of the mouthpiece having been moved from Leeds, East to Portsmouth, West.
In Service and defence debates the House ought to try to help the Services with the answer to the questions they so often put to us: "What sort of war do you want us to be ready to fight?" An answer to that question is more important than half-informed and querulous talks about this or that mark of torpedo.
Had there been more time this evening I had wanted to address the Minister on two fundamental issues. The first is this question of the defence of trade and our

oil supplies; but this point has been made previously, so I will only say that I agree with the many voices which say that if our dedication to NATO is to make any sense at all we must somehow persuade our NATO partners that the threat to the trade of Western Europe does not stop at the Tropic of Cancer.
It is this argument about the need to protect overseas trade which creates my concern about shipborne aircraft and the problem of the Harrier. This question also has been raised by several hon. Members, so I merely emphasise that my preference is for manned aircraft rather than for missiles. Manned aircraft can positively identify a target, while missiles can lead us perhaps into a very dangerous confrontation with a potential enemy. If we depend on missiles alone, some young commander may have to take a vital decision when no information of positive identification is available to him. In a word, missiles can start or continue a war but are not so useful in preventing it.
We have had many statements during recent years about the Harrier, and even in last year's White Paper we read:
The trials carried out from HMS "Ark Royal" during the past year have shown that VSTOL aircraft can be operated effectively from a ship's deck and that there are no technical or logistic reasons why VSTOL aircraft should not be suitable for deployment at sea.
That statement was written a year ago, and we are still being told that "project definition studies" are afoot. That means to me that the Economist of 3rd March was correct when it said:
In short, the Royal Air Force sees in the maritime Harrier and its possible successor another competitor for scarce funds.
We must not blame or point a finger at the Services for quarrelling amongst themselves about allocation of funds, but rather blame ourselves for not allocating enough funds overall to defence.
I turn from these strategic matters to the domestic matter of recruiting and, in particular, the recruiting of 15-year-olds. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a parliamentary Question on this subject as recently as 20th March. The position is that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington has lost on points to my right hon. and fair Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science; but I want the Minister, with


this in mind, to explain to her that for young men to join the forces is not a fate worse than death. The statistics are that in 1971–72 35·9 per cent. of recruits to the Navy joined at the age of 15. Many more 15-year-olds apply even now than 16-year-olds.
The Donaldson Report on pages 68 to 70 said that education in the Services which is carried on—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's Sitting the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Counter-Inflation Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Murton.]

Orders of the Day — ROYAL NAVY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Murton.]

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The Donaldson Report made the point that education in the Services available for young men simultaneously with military training is excellent. Therefore, there should be nothing but advantage to the Department of Education and Science if this scheme for 15-year-olds were continued. I believe it is so important to Service recruiting that the Minister should go into action on behalf of the Navy and, indeed, the Army.
In view of the time scale, I end with this point. I am glad to report that HMS "Belfast", which the House so kindly gave to the HMS Belfast Trust two years ago, has had well over half a million visitors in her first year. I hope that the recruiting office on board will be extremely useful to the Ministry and will repay some of the generosity shown by the Minister when he handed over the ship to the trust.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I regret that this debate is truncated, not because I believe in garrulous speeches, but because, when one reflects on the individual Member of Parliament who from the back benches had the greatest and I believe most helpful effect on defence debates since 1945, one undoubtedly thinks of George Wigg. I did not like what George Wigg did over Profumo, but this man had a salutory effect on the Army, the Navy and the Air Force which was perhaps overlaid by the Profumo affair. His contribution throughout the 1950s and 1960s should not be forgotten. How did he do it? He did it by being able to speak for 55, 65, or more minutes at choice.
I believe in open-ended debate on Defence Estimates. I see the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). I have seen him in action on the Counter-Inflation Bill. I hope, for the sake of the House of Commons, that we can go back to going on as long as we like, because, frankly, the executive are getting away with murder. I am not speaking in party terms. The Government are getting a very easy ride and they do not deserve to do so—this year, at any rate.
If I confine my speech to four hostile questions it is not because I do not care about the Navy. I had a good visit to the "Ark Royal". I admire naval personnel as much as anybody. I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) said about the dockyard. I, too, represent a constituency with a dockyard—Rosyth. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will pay particular attention to my hon. Friend's remark about the jungle of pay structures.
I should like to repeat a question that I put in the defence debate relating to the critical matter of safety. In this connection I refer again to the answer that was given to me on 16th February by the Minister of State:
There was no danger either to the submarine or of any other kind.
That was a reference to the "Repulse" misfiring:
The launch itself was successful and the incident was not the result of any failure on the part of the ship's company or equipment.

Again, I ask: was this an act of God?
The precise cause is being investigated." —[OFFCIAL REPORT, 16th February 1973; Vol. 850, c. 435.]
I repeat that question because this is a serious matter. It is absurd to suggest that these things happen by themselves. I do not know what Members of Parliament are taken for by the Ministry of Defence in giving an imbecilic answer like that.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): It could be that the hon. Gentleman is incapable of understanding a perfectly sensible answer. He cannot rule out that hypothesis. The answer refers to
the ship's company or equipment
That leaves out "missile". That is perfectly easy to understand if he looks at the answer.

Mr. Dalyell: This is an interesting example of the drafting of parliamentary answers. If it is found that it was the missile at fault, something new will have been established.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We are still investigating, but it is obvious that it was to do with the missile. We do not know exactly what it was, but we shall soon do so. The hon. Gentleman has made a mountain out of the same molehill on about three occasions during the last week.

Mr. Dalyell: When I get proper answers my speeches are usually shorter.
The next issue is that of BUTEC at Raasay which was the subject of an Adjournment debate on 12th February. I shall repeat the constructive suggestions which were not dealt with in that debate. If we are to have an underwater test evaluation centre, it is sensible for the Navy to get together with the oil interests—I have checked this—to see how this highly-sophisticated, expensive, sensitive equipment can be used in helping North Sea oil company submcrsibles. I repeat the question which I thought the Ministry would look into after the Adjournment debate on 12th February.
I say in passing, on the question of research, that I have contempt for the kind of speech that was delivered by the


hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we shall save money by contracting research and rationalising it, and then complain if our constituencies are affected. If the Government want me as a friend in anything, let me tell them that I am a total supporter of theirs in trying to rationalise research. This means that some of us have to face the fact that our constituencies may have to contend with great problems. We cannot go bleating to the Ministry of Defence every time anything is closed down which affects our constituents, and at the same time expect there to be rationalisation of research in defence affairs.
I turn next to the question of the through-deck cruiser to ask why it has taken so long to get a decision on the maritime Harrier. This evaluation has gone on and on. Ministers have been trekking to the "Ark Royal" and back again. The Minister of State now at the Foreign Office went to the "Ark Royal", as did some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Why has this taken so long?
If we are to have three ships at £75 million apiece I want to ask some serious questions about their vulnerability because I am told that however sophisticated the equipment on these ships there is a real risk of their being vulnerable. I am told that one or two torpedoes could easily get through, and that would be £75 million blown up. Much more important, the lives of 1,200 men would be at risk. One wonders, therefore, whether the through-deck cruiser, apart from its expense, is a sensible concept.
Relating that to the question of Sea Wolf, the escalation in its price seems to be something that we shall look at when the Expenditure Committee's Report is published.
Finally, because I am sharing time with the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), I refer to the Indian Ocean, a subject on which I interrupted the Minister for the Navy when he was speaking. It is probably true that there are Russian forces in the Indian Ocean, and I interrupted the Minister's speech to try to get some facts. I do not blame the Minister for coming to a defence debate without all the facts relating to

the Russian military presence in the Indian Ocean, but I want to know what our obligation is. What is the British obligation in this?
I understood that there had been a change of policy. The Chinese may be worried because there are considerable Russian forces in the Indian Ocean, but what, precisely, is the notion here? Is it that we match them, or is our Navy to be bigger? What is the operational requirement. I think we ought to know precisely what is British maritime policy in the Indian Ocean. I end by saying that I should like to have it spelled out why the emphasis on Russian forces in the Indian Ocean should affect us.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The fundamental issue which has emerged throughout this debate is the protection of our sea communications. Those communications are vital to us for one reason only, and that is oil, Fifty-seven per cent. of all NATO's oil has to be imported, most of it around the Cape. The danger is not so much that the Soviets would use their immense maritime power to cut those communications, because that would be an act of war, but that they would threaten to do so and be in a position to carry out their threat by methods to which NATO would have no reply—in other words, that they would be able to execute a successful blackmail.
We in NATO must have a flexible response to this threat. The need for this flexible response I summed up in the defence debate, so I will not weary the House by going into it again in detail. But I would agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) that the first need is a nuclear deterrent. I am glad that he stressed this from the Labour Party benches. We do not often hear that point of view advanced from there, and I am sure that it is a correct one.
The hon. Member went on to say that the convoy precept was obsolete and that we must be able to match the Soviet threat with our own counter-threat. There is not much difference between us, except that he will know that the NATO concept is wholly based on convoys in war. Perhaps the whole of NATO policy is wrong, but I would suggest that, presumably, they know best. I do not see how the


hon. Member could match the threat, if not by a protection of convoys, other than by the nuclear deterrent, which is the ultimate counter-threat—and I am sure that we would use it if we were deprived of oil.
However, I will not labour that point, because I want to repeat to my hon. Friend ideals which I believe of fundamental importance for the defence of our oil supplies. First, there should be the provision of a subsidy for shipbuilders, so that tankers and container ships can have platforms on which they can carry anti-submarine helicopters or even VSTOL aircraft. I believe, with the hon. Member for Sutton, that we should increase the rate of building of our fleet submarines, particularly if we are to get an effective submarine-launched surface weapon.
I believe that we should seek to revise international law to show that a threat to a super tanker could be an ecological disaster far greater than a nuclear bomb and that therefore it should be deterred by international law.
Finally on this issue, we need long-range aircraft. If we are not to have organic naval air power we must have long-range strike aircraft, but we will not get them because the MRCA has not sufficient range to operate in oceanic areas, so we need land airfields, and the only ones from which we can protect these 66 ships a day which are destined for Europe around the Cape are in South Africa, the Portuguese Provinces, or Salisbury in Rhodesia.
It is vitally important to co-operate with and supply the necessary maritime aircraft to these Powers. The South Africans, I know, want to replace the Buccaneers that have been lost since we originally supplied them and they are also interested in Nimrod. I hope that I will not get a continuation of the reply that I have been having for the last four years, which was repeated by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs today. I asked him about the supply of maritime aircraft, and he said:
As I told the House on 12th July 1971 I will inform it of any decision to supply maritime arms to South Africa. The position remains that no orders have been received.
I know that, as well as anyone else, because, as my right hon. Friend knows,

the South Africans will not put in a positive order until they have been told that they will get an export licence. This is merely playing with words, and it is a matter of fundamental importance. I hope that, now that SACLANT has the right to plan in the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean, this matter will be raised with my right hon. Friend at the top level. What we need is a flexible response at sea. We have it on land; now, we need it at sea.
May I refer to the speeches of the three "fisheries Members"? I believe that they are dead right about Iceland. We do not want a confrontation if we can avoid it. On the other hand, we have cried wolf many times in the House. There have been six or seven statements saying that, if harassment goes on, we will send in the Navy. Let us say categorically that we hope negotiations will take place—one understands now that they will—but that, if there is another action by the Icelandic gunboats against our trawlers, the Royal Navy will go in.
I have suggested that there is a halfway house—a demonstration which sends the Navy in to show what we can do, and then retires it beyond the 50-mile limit. If there is another incident after that, the Navy would then have to go in for good.
Many tributes have been paid to the Royal Marines during the debate. As an ex-Marine I am delighted about that. The House will know that the battle honours of the Royal Marines are the great globe itself. That indicates flexibility and the corps must maintain maximum flexibility. That gives rise to three brief questions. In a small corps which numbers about 8,000 it is essential that it recruits every man it can get. Will the Minister assure the House that there is no ceiling placed on recruiting and that the corps can recruit all it can get?
Secondly, concerning the Royal Marine Reserve, will the Minister consider whether the liability and regulations for the call-out of the RMR should be made the same as those for the TAVR, which would entitle them to the bounty and be a very much more effective use of the reserve.
Finally, I understand that HMS "Intrepid" is now going to the Dartmouth Squadron. I hope that "Intrepid" will


be available for amphibious exercises even if she is in that squadron.
I congratulate the two Front Bench speakers on their opening speeches. The only criticism I would make is of the peroration of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) when he spoke about Greece, Turkey and Portugal. He must know that the reason that American carriers are in the Mediterranean is that the southern part of NATO is weak in air power, in other words, Greece, Turkey and Italy are weak in the air. The carriers are not there for naval purposes, but to boost NATO air power. The most important part of the Mediterranean other than the Straits of Gibraltar is the Dardanelles, which is guarded by Turkey and Greece, countries which are vital to our alliance. Every attack on them, such as that made by the hon. Member—I realise why he did it—weakens NATO and the whole of our alliance. This is most regrettable.

Mr. Judd: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that allies who for their Government are dependent upon repressive regimes are unreliable allies because they are forcing opposition within their political system into extremist hands, frequently Communist inspired?

Mr. Wall: No. It is always Right-wing regimes that the Opposition criticise. I have never known them to criticise semi-authoritarian or authoritarian Left-wing regimes to anything like the same extent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Occasionally, perhaps some. But it was Greece which was the target; now it is Turkey, too. This is very dangerous to the alliance. That is not only my view; it is the view of many senior officers of NATO.
Portugal, our ally in NATO, has a magnificent record in Africa, which is wholly non-racial and has the support of the large majority of her African citizens. I for one am delighted that I have been asked to go to Portugal for the 600th anniversary of this historic alliance with Britain which is soon to be celebrated by both countries, and is of importance today as it was 600 years ago.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. William Handing: This is my annual benefit. I am very glad to speak immediately after the

hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for a variety of reasons, the chief of which is that we are old comrades in arms —ex-Royal Marines. I shall comment on some of his remarks on the Royal Marines later, but I take up immediately his point about supporting repressive regimes, either of the so-called Right or the so-called Left.
For my money, a repressive regime is a repressive regime, whether it is allegedly Communist or allegedly something else. Our whole strategy, our whole defence, particularly through NATO, to which the Opposition side of the House is committed as much as the Government side, is for the support of NATO. What is the chief threat concerning NATO? I do not need to answer that question. The hon. Member for Haltemprice knows the answer perfectly well. No one can say that the Opposition side of the House is soft on repressive regimes, wherever they may be.
We would sell the case for defending the free world if we were to ally ourselves with, and rely for part of our mutual defence on, other repressive regimes. That is our view, and it is implicitly the view taken by the Government Front Bench, although as they are in office and as they have some rather doubtful supporters perhaps they are not as willing to spell these things out in such precise terms as I have.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman said, "if we were to ally ourselves with other repressive regimes", and in his definition included Portugal, Greece and Turkey. We are their allies. Does he suggest that they should leave NATO?

Mr. Hamling: I was thinking particularly of bases in South Africa, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is in that part of the world, affecting Portugal and South Africa, that the real struggle against colonialism exists. Britain has turned its back on colonialism. To that extent, our record is clean. It would be a major retrograde step if we sought land bases in either South Africa or in Portuguese colonies in Mozambique and elsewhere.

Mr. John Biffen: Will the hon. Gentleman do my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) the


courtesy of answering his specific question? Speaking with the authority that the hon. Gentleman does from the Opposition Front Bench, is it his view that it would be preferable for NATO if Turkey, Greece and Portugal withdrew from that organisation?

Mr. Hamling: I would say "Yes", although I am dressed with rather brief authority tonight. If we are to stand up in the world as the defenders of freedom, we must ensure that our allies in the fight are clean. In considering NATO's future we must consider this question as well as the other questions which are being posed.
One sad feature of the debate is that we have not had a whole day. There have been many debates in recent months when the Whips on both sides—I speak with some experience—have been at pains to try to keep the debate going. The Government Whip knows this as well as I do. I have seen him running around. That is why he has maintained his figure. In this debate we have had a good number of speakers, but this has been possible only because of the restraint exercised by hon. Members. We should bring to the notice of those who manage the business of the House that it is about time that the Royal Navy was accorded better treatment in the House in the granting of debating time.
Without detracting from those who have graced the Government Front Bench tonight, it is significant that there are not as many Privy Councillors in the Defence Department nowadays as there used to be. Defence is an important topic, not only from the point of view of policy, but also because a good deal of the taxpayers' money is involved. It is essential for the House to have the opportunity of a close scrutiny of how the money is spent and whether we are getting value for money.
I wish to refer to some of the significant speeches of the debate, and particularly that of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). She made what I thought was an important speech, and I began to wonder, as we often do in these debates on the Navy, from which side of the House the speech was being made. Certainly her speech could have come from the Labour benches. Her remarks on the dockyards

were endorsed completely by her constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) on the importance of providing for career structures in the dockyards for civilians.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) referred to the Icelandic dispute. This is a thorny problem and one which concerns the livelihood and safety of many people in various parts of the country. I hope that we shall get some solution to it and some real defence for them. Perhaps the most important speech made from the back benches was by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton. I thought that he came closer to the nub of the debate— that is, the rôle of the Navy and what is naval policy. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will deal with this matter much more succinctly and directly and in straighter terms—and I do not imply by that a moral judgment.
Judging from some of the other speeches made in the debate many hon. Members are not sure what the rôle of the navy is. The White Paper says that our Polaris submarines are
the United Kingdom's contribution to the Western strategic deterrent.
They are not independent, they are part of the Western strategic deterrent.
All major ships and amphibious forces are earmarked for assignment in war to NATO; in peacetime they are deployed world-wide as NATO, other allied, or national interest require.
They are not independent—they do not perform independent rôles—certainly in wartime. National interests come third in that sentence. This point must be made in view of some of the speeches.
My hon. Friend referred to some of the topics we have heard in previous naval debates and I should like to return to some of these later, particularly the balance of the fleet. One of the speeches I thought showed an inability to come to terms with the rôle of the Navy was that by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). He talked, for example, about Harriers exercising a VSTOL rôle in close support. In what theatre? In the Indian Ocean— away from these shores—

Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that I was referring to the Mediterranean, and more particularly the northern flank of NATO, where there is a lack of airfields and where land-based combat air patrols could be maintained only by in-flight fuelling. Out of the NATO theatre, the Indian Ocean would not be inappropriate, as it has been reasonably suggested that there should be two or three of these vessels.

Mr. Hamling: The hon. Gentleman's intervention indicated that he assumes the northern flank is inside the NATO theatre. Nobody would suggest that even in the Indian Ocean our allies are not involved much more deeply than we could ever be. Do Government supporters see the Navy as part of NATO or as performing an independent rôle? I should like the Minister to dwell on this important question to a much greater extent.
The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) seems to have become a reformed character. In previous debates he has made an independent approach, but tonight he asked the perfectly correct question: what sort of war are we expected to fight? That is the basic question behind this debate.
I said earlier that one question we have to ask is whether we are getting good value for the money we spend. That is almost a quotation. The other night I heard a senior officer in Her Majesty's Forces—he shall remain anonymous because it was a private occasion—saying that we are concerned with getting value for the taxpayers' money. That is a modern point of view. I do not know whether senior officers in previous wars thought of saving money, but they certainly did not think much about saving lives. They were prodigal of money and of men. But money and men are in short supply.
Much of what we spend in the Navy is on pay and keep. That means that the amount of money we have for equipment, weapon systems, ships and so on is limited. Manpower is limited too, and it must therefore be used economically. People talk about extra carriers, but we cannot man them. We cannot man all the ships we have now. We cannot keep all our ships at sea because we have not

sufficient manpower. People make extravagant claims for new types of ship— and I am thinking particularly of new cruisers—but, apart from expense and vulnerability, can we man them? I doubt whether we have the skilled people required to do the job.
We have only 36,500 men in our ships at sea out of a total of 70,000. This puts a great limitation on our ability, and I know that those in the Navy are stretching their imagination to produce more people to man the ships.
Expenditure is one of the great limitations to which I refer. A great deal of money is spent on pay and on equipment of all sorts. The White Paper tells us that in the current year about £100 million will be available for ships and machinery. And we are now talking, not of one through-deck cruiser, but perhaps of three. If we have one such cruiser in the Estimates there will not be enough money for anything else—and if we have three over a period of time it will mean that other ships will have to go. This is one of the great limitations that we must face in this House and which the taxpayers must face.
Since this year we are spending only £100 million on weapon systems, we must have versatile ships and men. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice— and in his capacity as an ex-Royal Marine I know that I can refer to him in that capacity—spoke of the versatility of the Royal Marines. One of the greatest arguments in favour of the continuation of the Royal Marines is their cost effectiveness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton was a little unfair when he asked— and he should know the answer coming, as he does, from Plymouth—whether the Royal Marines were aware of the need to diversify their activities and their rôle. He spoke of their rôle in Arctic operations. We know that Royal Marines are involved in that area in the northern flank of NATO. We also know that they are trained as paratroopers, as mobile infantry and in amphibious operations in the tropics, and so on, with independent detachments being used for specific enterprises. In the Small Boat Section the Royal Marines are canoeists and frogmen. Therefore, there is tremendous versatility and I know that it is welcomed.
Versatility depends very much on the morale of the Royal Marines and on their dependability. Those of us who served in the corps and who have experienced the dependability of the ordinary marine know that the junior NCOs accept responsibility of a very high order. The lesson we must draw from the whole of the Navy Estimates is that ships must be versatile—in other words capable of many uses. This is why I have grave doubts about through-deck cruisers—not only because they are expensive in manpower but because they are very vulnerable.
I should like to develop some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, but unfortunately I have not time. However, I endorse what he said, especially when he spoke about submarines and the rôle of the Navy in defence.
We must look at the rôle of the Navy in the future in terms of the kind of war in which we are likely to be involved, and not in terms of the last one or even the one before last. So often it is the case that some of our strategists plan for the war before last and not the next one. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that that is the thinking in his Department, and that it is looking at the future rôle of the Navy in those terms.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Buck: I gather that I do not have to seek the leave of the House to reply to the debate.
Let me say first how grateful I am for the extremely gracious remarks of hon. Members about me on my first appearance at the Dispatch Box in a debate on naval matters.
I am afraid that the time limit imposed upon us will not enable me to deal with a large number of the matters which have been raised. All that I can do is to assure hon. Members that I shall deal with them in correspondence. I understand that there is probably to be a debate tomorrow on Icelandic fishing in the course of our discussions on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill, I hope at not too unreasonable an hour, so I may be able to deal with that topic then.
A number of hon. Members have suggested that our plans for the balance of the fleet's capabilities are not entirely as they should be. As I indicated in my opening remarks, this must be a mat-

ter of judgment. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) expounded his view, as usual most eloquently, that a greater emphasis should be placed on our submarine and antisubmarine forces. A number of my hon. Friends have chosen as their theme the necessity for protecting our trade routes and have said that there are insufficient forces to defend them. I dealt with that matter in my opening remarks.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Sutton to the fact that, as outlined in the White Paper, our modern warship building programme consists of eight Type 21 frigates, six Type 42 destroyers and five nuclear-powered submarines, all of them vessels with an imposing anti-submarine capability. In the case of the earlier frigates of the Leander class, this capability is now being improved still further by fitting them with the IKARA anti-submarine system. The cruisers "Tiger" and "Blake" will also be re-entering service later this year with their Sea King anti-submarine helicopters embarked. I also draw attention to the deliveries of the Mark 24 heavyweight torpedo, due to be taken shortly, and in a slightly longer timescale to the introduction of the Anglo-French Lynx helicopter into service to replace the Wasp.
In the face of this evidence it is difficult to sustain the argument that we are not giving enough attention to the submarine threat and to the methods of countering it. The question why we are not building more nuclear submarines ourselves is a different one, and I think that it can best be answered in terms of the need for a balanced fleet which I outlined in my opening remarks. The capability of the nuclear fleet submarine is imposing. Its ability to range at will beneath the surface of the world's oceans, its independence of support, its prolonged endurance and its high speed all combine to produce a formidable submarine, the potential of which we propose to tap to the full. We are building up our force at a steady rate, with six in service, five more building, and further boats planned.

Mr. John Morris: Has there been any change recently in the rate of building of the hunter-killer submarines?

Mr. Buck: I shall want to check the precise rate, but there has been, relative to the rest of the fleet, something of a stepping-up. Plans were made a considerable while ago. We are to some extent building on foundations laid by other Ministers many years ago. I shall want to check the time scale. The Opposition cannot evade a fair degree of responsibility for the present shape of the Navy and what is planned in the forthcoming years. I shall make some researches on the question asked by the right hon. Member for Averavon (Mr. John Morris), and answer him definitively.
Just as the capital ships of the past were not suited to all the tasks which the Navy was then required to perform, the nuclear submarine of today is not suitable for all that the fleet has to do. The need for adequate forces for such tasks as fishery protection and the protection of the sea routes, so strongly advocated by many hon. Members, illustrate that point very forcibly. Such tasks demand the ability to apply force in a graduated and controlled way. We therefore need to devote the right balance of resources to our surface fleet for, while a submarine may deny the use of the sea to an aggressor, it cannot by itself provide control of the sea.

Mr. Dalyell: I asked about our obligation in the Indian Ocean in relation to Russia's obligation.

Mr. Buck: That is very much a Foreign Office matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are Commonwealth and friendly countries in that area. I do not wish at such short notice to define the precise character of our obligation in that area. I shall consider the antecedents. We have friends in that area and it is appropriate that we should have a deployment. Whether that deployment should be based on a strict treaty obligation is something which I shall have to check. There is a substantial Russian presence in the Indian Ocean.
We need the ability to deploy along the main trade routes of the world, together with our allies, a surface capability which can be seen and so deter. With our presently planned building programme we are seeking to ensure that we have that capability for the foreseeable future. We

have to bear in mind that a nuclear submarine is enormously more expensive than, for example, a Type 22 frigate, and that any significant increase in the building rate of the submarine would involve severe reductions in our destroyer-frigate force, or the early abandonment of other large areas of capability.
The forthcoming command cruiser or through-deck cruiser—and both titles have been used—has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have been pressed for the latest cost-estimate of that type of cruiser. I am afraid that it is a matter of representing an oyster constituency. I cannot add to what has been said in the past on both sides of the House during defence debates. It is not the normal practice to divulge cost-estimates of such defence projects, not least because we are still undertaking complicated negotiations with Vickers relative to the contract. As the House knows, these negotiations are well advanced, and we hope to be able to announce the order shortly. The negotiations are confidential and obviously very complex for a ship of this kind. No one knows that better than some right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) asked how many cruisers we are to have. At this stage we are looking a long way ahead. We plan to have a class of these ships but the first has not yet been finally ordered. We cannot speculate further, into the 1980s, on that matter.
There is another aspect of new construction which is perhaps a side issue but nevertheless important. In Committee on the Industry Act last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development said that the Minister of State for Defence was considering various measures which would in future reduce the extent to which shipbuilders would need to provide in their price quotations for the possible risks of long-term contracts for warships. We are discussing with the shipbuilders new payments schemes on future contracts which still materially ease their cash flow situation.
We have told the shipbuilders that, whenever uncertainties would make a fixed price especially hazardous, we are willing to share the financial risks under


contractual arrangements and at the same time provide them with an incentive to earn a reasonable profit for a good performance. These measures should help to maintain the health of our shipbuilding industry, in which the Ministry of Defence is vitally interested.

Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend say something about the suggestion of having helicopter platforms on tankers, with a subsidy? It has been put forward in the House about nine times in the last two years and we have never had a reply to it.

Mr. Buck: It is one of the things being considered. Whether it would be practical to have the full support facilities needed by a complicated aircraft like the Sea King in such vessels, I am doubtful. But I will look into the matter and let my hon. Friend know.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) spoke about flying training. The Royal Navy is already doing this in conjunction with the Royal Air Force. We have taken the first steps towards joint Royal Navy—RAF manning of operational squadrons. We must await the outcome of the study of the VSTOL. I have no doubt that a sensible arrangement for the manning of VSTOL aircraft, if approved, will be worked out, but at this stage I had best leave the subject there.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West also referred to the amphibious force. He asked for information about HMS "Bulwark". She is good for some years yet. It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that the conversion of HMS "Hermes" for a commando ship rôle will be finalised in the next few months. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked about HMS "Albion". She is to be replaced by the "Hermes" and has been placed on the disposal list. However, she is still being cannabalised for use elsewhere in the Fleet.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff also asked about escort vessels. He seemed to be painting a scenario to the effect that we do not have enough escort vessels to take on the Soviet submarine fleet. But anti-submarine warfare is not just a matter of escort vessels but of combined operations by fixed-wing air-

craft, helicopters—particularly the new Sea King—the new hunter-killer submarines, and escort vessels. There is no room for complacency, but including the United States Navy the maritime strength available to NATO is very considerable.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman going to answer my question or will he be unkind enough to say that he will make a third speech tomorrow?

Mr. Buck: I will turn to him, missing many other points, because the hon. Gentleman has been extremely patient about this matter. I have not a great deal to say to him on this subject. I am sure that he would not expect me to outline precisely the deployment of our frigates. That would not be in the interests of either those he seeks to serve or any of us. I can perhaps give him some private information relative to this matter, because I do not think that he is likely to leak it to anybody else. I will see whether anything can be done and leave it at that at this stage. We hope that the negotiations, which look as though they are likely to be embarked upon, will be successful so that we can get fishing back to normal in these distant waters.
It would be entirely inappropriate if I were not to turn, at least briefly, to the question of the dockyards. However, before doing so, I should mention the deterrent. I have nothing to add to the answers given to the hon. Member for Sutton and other hon. Members recently, save that I refute any suggestion that there has been any Navy to Navy conspiracy relative to the matter which he suggested.

Dr. David Owen: Did the Minister authorise the Royal Navy to approach the United States Navy without going through the normal channels?

Mr. Buck: I refute the suggestion that there has been any Navy to Navy conspiracy whatsoever. I understand that the Royal Navy, acting as part of the Ministry of Defence, has done only that which was asked of it by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am glad to get on record that that is the situation.
As Navy Minister some of my most interesting visits have been to the dockyards. I pay tribute especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport


who has devoted so much time and energy to the cause of the dockyards, which is readily appreciated throughout the Navy. On HMS "Ark Royal" I met constituents of hers who pointed out her devotion to this cause. She has raised many interesting and difficult points. I should not be being frank with the House if I were to say that at this stage there were any plans for new construction in the dockyards. There are no such plans at the moment. I can understand the frustration and difficulties in the dockyards, because obviously there is more job satisfaction in seeing a keel laid and going through to the completion of a vessel.
My hon. Friend raised many other matters. I have no doubt that before long Mallabar will be written on my heart. I am giving that matter great study. Progress is being made. The Advisory Board with Sir Henry Benson and others arises directly from Mallabar. Much is being done on that score.
It is pleasant to have a debate of such a constructive character without animosity. I agree with the theme recently put forward by the Opposition that we want less yahbooism in politics. It is nice to find on both sides of the House a real devotion to the cause of the Royal Navy and a wide acceptance of the need to maintain our maritime rôle.

Mr. Oscar Murton (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — COUNTER-INFLATION BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

CODE FOR GUIDANCE OF AGENCIES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 34, after "consult" insert "(a)".

11.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I beg to move That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I think that with this we should take Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 36, at end insert:
and
(b) except in the case of the first order made under this section, the Agencies.

Mr. Macmillan: I think that would be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The purpose of the amendments is to add the two agencies to those who will be consulted under subsection (4). I think that there will be no possibility of not consulting the agencies about any new code or amendments to the code.
The second amendment is designed to absolve the Government of the need for such consultation in the case of the first order—that is to say, the first order setting out the code—since the object is to benefit by the expertise and knowledge built up by the agencies in the course of their practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

INTRODUCTION OF VALUE ADDED TAX TEMPORARY POWER TO CONTROL PRICES AND CHARGES

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 8, line 15, after "reflect" insert "—(a)",

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it will be convenient if with this we take Lords Amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 17, at end insert:
(b) alterations in the rates of customs ana excise duties payable in respect of spirits, beer, wine, British wine, tobacco, matches and mechanical lighters, being alterations first having statutory effects by virtue of Resolutions of the House of Commons made in March 1973 under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968".

Mr. Jenkin: The House will remember that the clause provides for the control of the changeover from purchase tax and SET to VAT. The Bill was drafted and debated in the House before the Budget, at a time when decisions had not then been announced about the effect of VAT


on the excise duties on various products mentioned in the second of the two amendments.
The House knows that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced reductions in the excise duties approximately of an amount to compensate for the fact that these products are to be charged with VAT, and it therefore becomes necessary that the Bill should contain provisions to ensure that this changeover should do no more than reflect the impact of the change in taxation.
The amendments were introduced in another place to achieve that object, and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause "A"

POWER TO MODIFY SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION ABOUT PRICES AND CHARGES

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 9, line 22, at end insert new Clause "A":

"A.—(1) The Minister may, not later than 30th April 1973, by order direct that any order, regulation, byelaw or other instrument—

(a) which has effect under any Act passed before this Act, and
(b) which relates to prices or charges,
shall have effect subject to such exceptions, modifications or adaptations as appear to the Minister to be expedient for the purpose of ensuring that prices and charges correctly or sufficiently reflect the introduction of value added tax and car tax, and the abolition of purchase tax and selective employment tax, by the Finance Act 1972.

(2) An order under this section relating to a yelaw made by a local authority may authorise the local authority having power to amend the byelaw, or a committee of the authority, to amend it by resolution.

(3) Any amendment of an instrument made in pursuance of this section shall have effect as if made under the same power as that under which the instrument was made, and accordingly may be amended by a subsequent instrument made in exercise of that power.

(4) An order under this section shall be contained in a statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In another place my noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Colville, explained the purpose of the clause at some length. That explanation is on record, and I think that at this hour of the night it is unnecessary for me to do more than give a brief explanation of it.
The purpose of the clause is to allow a short cut in the case of local authorities outside London to enable them to authorise fare increases in the case of the taxi trade to take account of VAT. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to adhere to the decision reached in this House last year that taxi fares should be charged to VAT. We have had many representations. We took due note of those, as well as of the report of the Select Committee which recommended us to give careful consideration to zero rating of taxi fares. We did so, but we felt unable to accede to that. On balance we felt it right that taxi fares should be charged to VAT.
But the fares are fixed by law, and as a result, in the absence of any change in fares, it would mean that VAT would be borne not by the consumer but by the trade itself, and that is not the intention of the Government. Where VAT is charged where a tax has not been charged before, we recognise that it is legitimate to raise the price of the service or of the commodity to allow for the tax. The same applies to the exempt taxi driver, who, although his fares are not charged to tax, has to bear the hidden tax on the various chargeable inputs which he cannot pass on to his customer.
The consequence of this is that taxi fares will have to go up a little to take account of VAT. In London, we estimate, a 3p increase on the initial hiring charge will be ample to compensate taxi drivers and taxi companies for the effects of VAT.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has power to make this fare increase by regulation, and this is being done. But outside London the situation is a little more complex. The fares are increased by byelaws, and there is a very rigid and time-consuming procedure for the passing of byelaws to raise fares. This may take, if not months, certainly weeks, yet the new fares must be in operation by 1st April or as soon thereafter as possible.
The clause provides an opportunity for local authorities to authorise increases in fares to take account of the effects of tax changes, and for no other purpose, at a very early date after 1st April. It empowers the appropriate Minister, whether the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to make an order which will allow local authorities to amend their byelaws by resolution without having to go through all the byelaw-making procedure. It is intended that the order will allow the local authority to increase fares by a sum not exceeding an amount specified in the order for any one journey, and the specified sum will be fixed after consultations with the local authority associations and the representatives of the trade. Consultations have already started and are being pursued urgently.
Within the limits of the order, local authorities will have discretion to choose the amount of the increase, if any, which should be authorised in their areas. I say "discretion". This is necessary because VAT will not affect all taxi traders in the same way; the structure of the trade varies from area to area and not every place will require the same increase.
The power intended by the Clause is temporary. In due course it will be necessary for local authorities to take a longer look at the effect of VAT upon the taxi trades in their areas. They will then no doubt wish to make more permanent changes, and perhaps more sophisticated changes, by amending bye-laws through the normal procedure. But what is needed now is a quick, corner-cutting procedure to allow the immediate effect of VAT to be offset by allowing a small fares increase to the taxi trade.

Mr. Brian Walden: We shall not oppose the Lords Amendment, because obviously it would be unfair that the trade itself should have to bear the effect of VAT. But the Opposition again state their view that it is quite wrong that this tax should have been levied on the taxi trade at all. The Government are wholly at fault here in not considering what a sensible transport policy should be.
Obviously, it is sensible that both the public bus service and the private taxi service should, if anything, be subsidised by the Government to prevent people from bringing their cars into city centres. It is another example of the way in which the operation of VAT is wholly inimical to sensible social policy. The Government are in error. VAT should never have been levied in this way.
However, I see no point in prolonging the discussion. The Government have made their decision. It is wrong that the trade itself should have to bear the charge, so we can see no objection to making this amendment as a matter of detail. In principle, however, we completely object to the levying of value added tax on the taxi trade. It is a mistake in social policy and a mistake in transport policy.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B"

PROTECTED TERRITORIES

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 9, line 22, at end insert new Clause "B":
Protected tenancies.

"B—(1) For paragraph (a) of section 1(1) of the Rent Act 1968 (protected tenancies) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs:—

"(a) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling-house fell before the date of the passing of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973,—

(i) the dwelling-house on the said appropriate day had a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £400 or, if it is elsewhere, £200, and
(ii) the dwelling-house on the date of the passing of the said Act of 1973 had a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £600, or, if it is elsewhere, £300, and
(iii) the dwelling-house on 1st April 1973 has a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £1,500 or, if it is elsewhere, £750, or

(aa) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling-house falls on or after the date of the passing of the said Act of 1973, but before 1st April 1973—

(i) the dwelling-house on the said appropriate day had a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £600, or, if it is elsewhere, £300, and
(ii) the dwelling-house on 1st April 1973 has a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £1,500, or, if it is elsewhere, £750, or

(aaa) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling-house falls on or after 1st April 1973, the dwelling-house on the said appropriate day has or had a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £1,500 or, if it is elsewhere, £750, or."

(2) In section 1(3) of the Rent Act 1968 (questions on limits of rateable value) for the words "subsection (1)(a)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (1)".

(3) So much of section 89 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 as relates to the said section 1 of the Rent Act 1968 (being provisions superseded by subsection (1) above) shall cease to have effect.

(4) Schedule (Rent Restriction) to this Act shall have effect for supplementing this section, and in that Schedule this section is referred to as the "principal section".

(5) References to this Act in sections 13 to 19 of this Act, and in Schedules 1 to 4 to this Act, shall not include references to this section."

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment the House is to take Lords Amendment No. 12, in Clause 21, page 18, line 28, after "Acts" insert "and instruments" Lords Amendment No. 18, after Schedule 4, in page 32, line 14, at end insert new Schedule "A":

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE A RENT RESTRICTION

Special rent limit for existing tenancies brought within the Rent Act

1.—(1) This paragraph applies to a regulated tenancy—

(a) which was granted before 8th March 1973, and
(b) which would not have been a regulated tenancy but for the provisions of subsection (1) of the principal section.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the recoverable rent for any contractual period of a tenancy to which this paragraph applies shall not exceed the limit specified in paragraph 2 below, and the amount of any excess shall, notwithstanding anything in any agreement, be irrecoverable from the tenant.

(3) Where a rent for the dwelling-house is registered under Part IV of the Rent Act 1968 which is less than the limit specified in paragraph 2 below, neither section 20(2) (registered rent as limit for contractural periods) nor section 22(2) (corresponding provision for statutory periods) of that Act shall apply to a tenancy to which this paragraph applies.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) above shall cease to apply if the landlord and the tenant so provide by an agreement conforming with the

requirements of section 43(3) of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (agreement to explain the nature of the tenant's security of tenure).

(5) sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply where a rent for the dwelling-house is registered under Part IV of the Rent Act 1968 which is not less than the limit specified in paragraph 2 below.

(6) Section 33 of the Rent Act 1968 (enforcement provisions) shall apply as if any amount made irrecoverable by this paragraph were irrecoverable by virtue of Part III of that Act, and section 36 of that Act (adjustment for differences in lengths of rental periods) shall apply for the purposes of this paragraph.

2.—(1) Where at the date of the passing of this Act Article 10 of the Counter-Inflation (Rents) (England and Wales) Order 1972 applied to the rent under the tenancy (to which paragraph 1 applies), the said limit is the rent payable under the tenancy as limited by the said Article 10 immediately before that date.

(2) In any other case the said limit is the rent payable under the terms of the tenancy (to which paragraph 1 applies), at the passing of this Act.

Adjustment for repairs, services or rates

3.—(1) This paragraph applies to a contractual period the rent for which is subject to paragraph 1(2) of this Schedule.

(2) In this paragraph "the previous terms" means the terms of the tenancy (to which paragraph 1 applies) as at the passing of this Act.

(3) Where under the terms of the tenancy there is with respect to—

(a)the responsibility for any repairs, or
(b) the provision of services by the landlord or any superior landlord, or
(c) the use of furniture by the tenant,
any difference compared with the previous terms, such as to affect the amount of the rent which it is reasonable to charge, the limit in paragraph 2 above shall be increased or decreased by an appropriate amount.

(4) Where for the contractual period there is a difference between the amount (if any) of the rates borne by the landlord or a superior landlord in respect of the dwelling-house and the amount (if any) so borne during the first rental period for which the previous terms were agreed, the limit in paragraph 2 above shall be increased or decreased by the difference.

(5) Where for the contractual period there is an increase in the cost of the provision of the services (if any) provided for the tenant by the landlord or a superior landlord compared with that cost at the time when the previous terms were agreed, such as to affect the amount of the rent which it is reasonable to charge, the limit in paragraph 2 above shall be increased by an appropriate amount.

(6) Where the previous terms provide for a variation of the rent in any of the circumstances mentioned in this paragraph, the limit shall not be further varied under this paragraph by reason of the same circumstances.

(7) Any question whether, or by what amount, the limit is increased or decreased by


sub-paragraph (3) or sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph shall be determined by the county court, and any such determination—

(a) may be made so as to relate to past rental periods, and
(b) shall have effect with respect to rental periods subsequent to the periods to which it relates until revoked or varied by a subsequent determination..

4. Section 25 of the Rent Act 1968 (increase for improvements) shall not apply to a tenancy to which paragraph 1 of this Schedule applies.

Premiums

5.—(1) This paragraph has effect where a premium was lawfully required and paid on the grant of a tenancy to which paragraph 1 of this Schedule applies.

(2) Nothing in section 86 of the Rent Act 1968 (prohibition of premiums on assignment of protected tenancies) shall prevent any person from requiring or receiving, on an assignment of the tenancy, the fraction of the premium specified below (without prejudice, however, to his requiring or receiving a greater sum in a case where he may lawfully do so under Schedule 11 to the Rent Act 1968).

(3) If there was more than one premium, sub-paragrah (2) above applies to the last of them.

(4) The said fraction isX/Ywhere—

(a) X is the residue of the term of the tenancy at the date of the assignment, and
(b) Y is the term for which the tenancy was granted.

(5) Sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall apply where a tenancy has been assigned as it applies where a tenancy has been granted, and then Y in the said fraction shall be the residue, at the date of that assignment, of the term for which the tenancy was granted.

(6) In this and the next following paragraph "grant" includes continuance and renewal.

6.—(1) Where the tenancy to which paragraph 5(1) above applies was granted on the surrender of a previous tenancy and a premium has been lawfully required and paid on the grant, or an assignment, of the previous tenancy, the surrender value of the previous tenancy shall be treated, for the purposes of paragraph 5 above as a premium, or as the case may be as part of the premium, paid on the said grant of the tenancy..

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above the surrender value of the previous tenancy shall be taken to be the amount which—

(a) if the previous tenancy had been assigned instead of being surrendered, and
(b) if this paragraph had applied to it,

would have been the amount which could have been required and received on the assignment in pursuance of paragraph 5 above and this paragraph.

(3) In determining for the purposes of paragraph 5 above, or of this paragraph, the

amount which may be or could have been required and received on the assignment of a tenancy terminable, before the end of the term for which it was granted, by a notice to the tenant, that term shall be taken to be a term expiring at the earliest date on which such a notice, given after the date of the assignment, would have been capable of taking effect.

Tenancies ending before passing of this Act

7.—(1) This paragraph applies where the tenancy of a dwelling-house has come to an end at a time before the passing of this Act, and the tenancy would have been a regulated tenancy if the principal section had been in force at that time.

(2) No order for possession of the dwelling-house shall be made which would not be made if the principal section had been in force at the said time.

(3) Where a court has made an order for possession of the dwelling-house before the passing of this Act, but the order has not been executed, the court, if of opinion that the order would not have been made if this Act had come into force before the tenancy came to an end may, on the application of the person against whom it was made, rescind or vary it in such manner as the court thinks fit for the purpose of giving effect to the principal section.

(4) If the tenant under the tenancy which has come to an end duly retains possession of the dwelling-house after the passing of this Act (without any order for possession having been made, or after the rescission of such an order) he shall be deemed to do so under a statutory tenancy arising on the termination of the tenancy which has come to an end, and, subject to sub-paragraph (7) below, the terms of that tenancy (including the rent) shall be deemed to have been the same as those of the tenancy which has come to an end.

(5) Where Article 10 of the Counter-Inflation (Rents) (England and Wales) Order 1972 applied to the rent under the tenancy, the rent under the tenancy imposed by sub-paragraph (4) above shall be the rent as limited by the said Article 10.

(6) Paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Schedule shall not apply to a statutory tenancy arising under sub-paragraph (4) above.

(7) The High Court or the county court may y order vary all or any of the terms of the tenancy imposed by sub-paragraph (4) above in any way appearing to the court to be just and equitable (and whether or not in a way authorised by the provisions of sections 23 and 24 of the Rent Act 1968).

(8) If at the passing of this Act the dwelling-house is occupied by a person who would, if the tenancy had been a regulated tenancy, have been the "first successor" within the meaning of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Rent Act 1968—

(a) an application under sub-paragraph (3) above may be made by that person, and
(b) sub-paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) above shall apply where that person retains possession as they apply where the tenant retains possession.

Mortgages

8. At the end of section 93 of the Rent Act 1968 (mortgages to which Part VIII of that Act applies) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(5) If at the date of the passing of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 land consisting of or including a dwelling-house was subject to a tenancy which becomes a regulated tenancy by virtue of section B of that Act, then in relation to that dwelling-house (and any land including that dwelling-house)—

(a) sections 94 and 95 below shall have effect as if for the reference in subsection (1)(a) above to 8th December 1965 there were substituted a reference to the date of the passing of the said Act;
(b) subsection (2)(a) of the said section 94 shall have effect as if for the reference to the appropriate day there were substituted a reference to 7th March 1973, and
(c) subsection (1)(b) of the said section 95 shall not apply."

Grounds for possession of dwelling-house

9. If at the date of the passing of this Act a dwelling-house was subject to a tenancy which becomes a regulated tenancy by virtue of the principal section, then, in relation to that tenancy—

(a) Case 5, paragraph (b) of Case 10, and paragraph 2(a) of Part III, of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 shall have effect as if for the references in those provisions to 8th December 1965 there were substituted references to the date of the passing of this Act.
(b) Case 8 of the said Schedule 3 shall have effect as if for the reference to 23rd March 1965 there were substituted a reference to 8th March 1973, and
(c) the said paragraph 2(a) of Part III of Schedule 3 shall have effect as if for 7th June 1966 there were substituted a reference to the expiration of a period of six

Lords Amendment No. 19, in Schedule 5, page 32, line 18, at the beginning insert:


"14 &amp; 15 Geo 6. c. 65.
The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951.
In section 16(2)(a) the words "on the appropriate day"."

Lords Amendment No. 20, in page 32, line 25, at end insert:


'1967 c. 88.
The Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
Section 39(1)(b).


1968 c. 23
The Rent Act 1968.
In Schedule 15, in the paragraph amending section 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 the words (amending section 2(5)) from "and in" to the end of the paragraph."

and Lords Amendment No. 21, in page 32, line 28, at end insert:


'1972 c. 47.
The Housing Finance Act 1972.
In section 89, in subsection (1) the words " (6) and ", in subsection (2) the words " (6) and " and " 1 and ". and subsection (6).

Statutory Instrument


S.I. 1972/1851.
The Counter-Inflation (Rents) (England and Wales) Order 1972.
In article 9(5) the words from " and this paragraph " to the end of article 9(5).




Article 10, except as respects rent for a period before the passing of this Act "

months beginning with the passing of this Act.

Reserve and Auxiliary Forces {Protection of Civil Interests Act) 1951

10. In section 16(2)(a) of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (protection of premises by extension of the Rent Acts) the words "on the appropriate day" shall cease to have effect, and for the words "in subsection (1)(a) of section 1" there shall be substituted the words " in paragraphs (a), (aa) or (aaa) of subsection (1) of section 1 ".

Tenancies at a low rent

11.—(1) At the end of section 2(1) of the Rent Act 1968 there shall be inserted the following proviso:—

"Provided that paragraph (a) of this subsection shall apply in relation to a dwelling-house—

(i) in relation to which the appropriate day fell before the passing of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, and
(ii) which had on the said appropriate day a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £400 or, if it is elsewhere, £200,

as if for the reference in the said paragraph (a) to the appropriate day there were substituted a reference to the date of passing of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973.".

(2) In section 2(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (as originally enacted) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the words "for the purposes of this subsection the rateable value of the property is that which would be taken as its rateable value for the purposes of section 2(l)(a) of the Rent Act 1968."

Construction

12. In this Schedule—

(a)"rates" include water rates and charges,
(b)other expressions shall be construed as in the Rent Act 1968."

Mr. Channon: I shall deal also with all the amendments selected.
These amendments deal with the points raised by some of my hon. Friends during the Report stage of the Bill, particularly the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat). My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) also took a leading part in the discussions. The amendments meet the point raised on that occasion. It would have the effect of raising the rateable value limit specified in Section 1 of the Rent Act 1968. The House will wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friends for the very tenacious way in which they pressed their argument. I apologise to the House for the length of the provisions. This is inevitable when one is dealing with Rent Act matters.
The effect of these amendments is that subsection (1) of the new clause sets out the amendments to Section 1 of the Rent Act 1968, which deal with the exceptions to those rents which are subject to rent regulation at present.
The point raised by my hon. Friends will be in effect to raise the rateable value limits in London from £400 to £600 and outside London from £200 to £300 for those dwellings falling into the rateable value limits which are subject to the protection of the Rent Acts. There are some smaller points, but I need not weary the House with those. I am, however, anxious to answer any questions put by hon. Members.
There is also a valuation point that where on 1st April 1973 a dwelling has a rateable value not exceeding £1,500 in Greater London and £750 elsewhere, a tenancy shall not be excluded from the protection of the Rent Act notwithstanding that it would have been excluded on the basis of its having a rateable value in excess of the limits which will obtain up to 31st March. That point was worrying my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South. So, for example, on enactment of the Bill, where two dwellings have rateable values of £610 in London and £310 outside London but on 1st April 1973, in consequence of rating revaluation, rateable values of £1,490 and £740 respectively, those tenancies would not be excluded from Rent Act protection. We

have been able to provide that any tenancy which exists when the new valuation lists come into effect and has a rateable value in London, on the new limits, not exceeding £1,500 and outside London not exceeding £750 shall receive protection.
We have also provided that no tenant shall lose his protection as a result of consolidating on the new valuation limits. I have no need to explain that in great detail.
These measures will bring within the Rent Act about 80 per cent. of the 20,000 or so unprotected tenancies now existing, about half in Greater London and about half in the rest of the country, mainly along the South Coast. This is done mainly in the first clause which we are dealing with, in Lords Amendment No. 6. The rest of the new clause and the whole of the new schedule set out the consequential provisions which flow from a decision to raise the rateable value limits.
There is one point about the transitional position. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the schedule we introduce the concept of a special rent limit for tenancies coming into rent regulation as a result of raising these limits. It is generally accepted that for existing tenancies paragraphs 1 and 2 provide that landlords may, where the contract allows, on enactment of these provisions, charge the tenant either the current rent, or the fair rent, whichever is the higher, for the duration of the contract. In other words, rents for these tenancies will mark time until such time as a fair rent overtakes the existing rent. In due course the current limit will disappear and the whole sector will become consolidated on the fair rent principle. This is an equitable way of dealing with these matters. The provisions will take effect immediately upon the Royal Assent. The transitional provisions are set out in the later amendments which are being discussed with the amendment which I am moving.
If hon. Members have questions I shall try to answer them but I have set out the basic points of the amendments which my hon. Friends have been so anxious to see made and which meet the very real social point they have been informing the House about for some time.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I wish to make only a brief comment. In these discussions the Opposition will maintain the tradition of brevity which was followed by the Opposition Front Bench throughout all the stages of the Bill.
We think that the amendments do not do much to improve the Bill. It was a poor Bill before it went to the other place, and it is still a poor Bill.
We welcome the amendment, for what it is worth. At least it recognises the point which has been emphasised again and again from the Opposition, that rent is one of the most vital elements in the cost of living and the failure of the Government to recognise this point adequately will be one of the main reasons why their entire strategy is likely to collapse.
The amendment is worth while to those who will benefit from it, and I welcome it as far as it goes. But the vital concession we should like to see from the Government is the suspension of the rent increases which flow from the Housing Finance Act and the Housing Finance (Scotland) Act. I heard only a few days ago that a large number of Durham miners received in the post their strike ballot from the NUM and in the same post a notice of a rise in their rents of 75p a week as a direct result of the Act. I ask Conservative Members to reflect on what people in that position will think of the Government's counter-inflation policy and how they are likely to react in terms of their wage demands and the rest.
Therefore, this group of amendments represents to us a small degree of recognition of the vital importance of rent, but unless the Government take much more radical steps along the lines we have constantly advocated the whole of their strategy is likely to be unsuccessful.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I take this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friends and also my noble Friends in the other place on their labours in perfecting these highly technical clauses so quickly and bringing them before the House so soon. I shall not go over the reasons why it was felt to be urgently necessary to take this kind of action, but I am glad that it

has received a welcome from the Opposition. The amendments will mean a great deal to many hard-pressed people in central London and other constituencies.
It is only proper that we should pay a tribute and express our appreciation for the prompt way in which this has been done. The parliamentary draftsmen deserve a special word of praise. I know a little about the complications because we almost allowed an anomaly to slip through, but they seem to have found a satisfactory way of dealing with it as a result of the representations that I and others made when we discovered that there might be a serious gap.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister on behalf of my constituents and those other hon. Members who have been particularly concerned over this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 15

OFFENCES

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 13, line 6, at end insert:
 () Where, under subsection (4) of section 7 of this Act, the Pay Board have given notice of their intention to make or give an order or notice under that section then, for the purposes of subsection (2) above, the giving of the notice under the said subsection (4) shall be treated as if it constituted the making or giving of the order or notice to which it relates.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose is to extend the protection given to an employer against industrial action to the 14 days during which the Pay Board has to give warning notice of its intention to issue a restriction or notice under Clause 15.
At present it is not, as the House will know, an offence to strike under the Bill, nor to take strike action, except for the purpose of inciting contravention of an order or notice, and this extends to a limited extent the potential offence of contravention of an order or notice for that compulsory period during which the Pay Board has to give 14 days' warning notice that it intends to issue a restriction by order or by notice. This is logical.

Mr. John Biffen: On Shrove Tuesday I had the agonizing choice of whether to give up for Lent pleasure or the Counter-Inflation Bill and, with some reluctance, I chose the former and I regret that I had to leave the birthday party of the Minister for Aerospace and come back to this amendment because it raises an issue of some substance.
When this subject was discussed in the other place, the Earl of Gowrie referred, as my right hon. Friend has done this evening, to the fact that the amendment would extend the period of 14 days during which the Pay Board has to give warning notice of its intention to issue a restriction order.
What I do not like about the amendment is that we do not know the thinking of the Government on the extent to which the 14-day period is protracted. It seems to me reasonably open-ended. Above all else, I do not like, in the terms of the amendment, the giving
of the notice under the said subsection (4) shall be treated as if it constituted the making or giving of the order or notice to which it relates.
This marks one further nudge in the direction of government by invitation rather than government by law, and that Sir Frank Figgures is going to raise an eyebrow, and that is half way to giving the notice. It extends the policy whereby we have the weekend speech, the Press release and the rest replacing the rule of law.
I hope that I am not developing this area beyond what it will reasonably bear, but, of course, it is against the background of legislation and the fashion of legislation which relies a great deal more on exhortation and leaning than upon the actual law.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that there are reservations about this because it was moved with extraordinary brevity in the House of Lords. It was done in two sentences. The watchdogs of the workers were wholly absent in the sense that not a single comment was offered from the Opposition benches. We have a sit-out from the Tribune group and are wholly dependent on the amiable revisionist from East Ham, but this comes in a clause which relates to offences and against a background where a large number of

people in this country believe that it will be illegal for hospital workers, gas workers, or coal miners to go on strike after this Bill becomes law. Of course it will not be illegal. However, in my surgery on Friday I had someone who had come to discuss industrial relations and was convinced that it would be illegal and he was an immensely reasonable person.
This is the sort of atmosphere that is being created—that the purpose of the Bill is to create offences so as to enforce greater industrial discipline over remuneration. An amendment of this character seems to widen the scope and control of the board so that it will have an extended period during which it may operate the notice procedure. Above all, by the technique of saying that for the board to say that it intended to issue a notice will be the same as if it had issued a notice, we drift into legislative refinements that carry within themselves some dangers.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: By leave of the House; merely to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), may I say that there is no question of extending any period of notice? It is simply that during the statutory period of notice, that period that has to be given by the board before an order or restriction may be issued, it is possible under this provision for a prosecution to be brought with the consent of the Attorney-General, and I do not think that that is in any way a weakening of the rule of law.

Mr. Prentice: Before we let the amendment pass, I ought to say a few words on behalf of amiable revisionists and tell the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that we studied the amendment with great care. It seemed to us to flow logically from the rest of the clause, and the clause seemed originally to be drafted rather ineffectively.
Given the fact that the clause is part of the Bill, we saw no particular objection to the amendment, but we have objected to the clause itself. In so far as I need to defend our attitude, and I need not do so at any length, I wish to say that we dislike the strategy of the compulsory incomes policy and we believe that the clause, as it stood and as


it will be amended, will cause a great deal of trouble.
We believe that, despite the protestations of Ministers, the scene is set for people who choose to defy the courts to go to gaol as a result of contempt of court actions. We believe that the scene is set for those who wish to be martyrs and are determined to be martyrs to be able to become martyrs. We object to the clause, and we voted against it in Committee.
However, I see no reason for going over that ground again, and I do not see any reason why noble Lords should have gone over it again. I think I should say that on behalf of those who have been described as amiable revisionists and thereby accused of not doing their duty on behalf of working people.

Mr. John Page: Will the Pay Board be able to make any order unless an employer has made a declaration that he intends to pay employees in excess of the permitted amount? For an order to be made, will it be essential for an employer to give notice if he is a category I employer, or to give some indication if he is a category II or category III employer and intends to make a higher settlement?
This is rather important, because if it is impossible for an order to be made in this instance it seems as though the Government are inciting an employer to break the law in order that the Pay Board shall be able to give him the protection of the law. This is not quite clear to industry, and I am not sure that it is totally clear to hon. Members. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend were able to give a lead in this matter at this stage.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Brian Walden: The Opposition in no way wish to prolong the discussion, but, quite unwittingly, I think, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) has slightly muddied the waters. Let the Opposition say again—because it relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen)—that there is no question of law until an order is served. An employer may pay what he chooses. He may offer his workers what he likes, and they may demand what they like. There is no sanction of law whatsoever. It cannot be said sufficiently

frequently. The Government have taken no powers whatsoever to prevent an employer making an offer to his workers or to prevent his workers demanding wage increases.
The law becomes operative when an order is served. Every sensible trade union and every sensible employer will obey the law when the law becomes operative—and every sensible trade union and every sensible employer will take no notice whatsoever of Government exhortation; each will do what he thinks is best.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 13, line 24, leave out from "approval" to "this Act" in line 25 and insert:
under Schedule 2 to this Act, or for consent under any provision of.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is purely a drafting amendment. As it stands, subsection 4(e) of the Clause relating to penalties for furnishing false information covers applications for consent under Part III—that is, Clause 12, dealing with VAT—and does not deal with applications for other consents, such as those dealing with restrictions on insurance premiums. The amendment is simply designed to cure this omission.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 13, line 39, after "(2)"insert:
or paragraph (a) of subsection (4),

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we can take Lords Amendment No. 10, in Clause 16, page 14, line 32, leave out "section 15(2)" and insert:
subsection (2), or paragraph (a) of subsection (4), of section 15.

The Solicitor-General: These amendments are considered necessary to rectify a small inconsistency in the Bill. The Bill provides that where there is a possibility of an offence being committed by a trade union official, so long as that official is acting within the scope of his authority it will be the union itself,


whether registered or not, that will be liable, and not the official.
It is impossible to exclude the possibility that the powers available under Clause 13(1) may at some stage be required to obtain information or documents from trade unions, registered or unregistered, and it may be that in those circumstances a trade union official, acting within the scope of his authority, is directed not to provide that information. Since, when acting with his official hat on, he is covered in the rest of the Bill it seemed wrong that he should be excluded from that protection in this provision, and the amendments are designed to cover both registered and unregistered trade unions.
It may be described as a poor law but in this connection an honest law.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 16

OFFENCES BY UNINCORPORATED BODIES

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 14, line 46, leave out "payable out of" and insert:
enforceable, by way of execution, diligence or otherwise, against".

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment designed to remove any doubt arising from the present wording of Clause 16(4)(c) about the enforcement of the payment of a fine imposed for an offence under the Bill on an organisation of workers or employers or other organisation when that organisation is unincorporated. It does not increase the areas in which the offence may be committed or extend the offence provisions. It is simply to remove any question of doubt as to obtaining the fine against the association, whether it be of employers or employees.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

APPROVALS AND CONSENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 24, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take also Lords Amendment No. 14, in page 24, line 28, leave out "sub-paragraph (2) above" and insert:
any provision of this Schedule so specified
and Lords Amendment No. 15, in page 24, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert:
2.—(1) Where an Agency approve proposals for an increase in accordance with an order under paragraph 1 above, the Agency shall not exercise their powers under Part II of this Act so as to restrict any price or charge, or any kind of remuneration, where the price or charge or remuneration is duly authorised by the approval.
(2) In exercising their powers under an order under paragraph 1 above, an Agency may frame an approval of proposals for an increase in such way as appears to them appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the provisions of the code are implemented.
(3) acting under sub-paragraph (2) above an Agency may—

(a) attach any conditions to an approval, and
(b) limit or qualify an approval to allow for any change in circumstances, and
(c) limit the duration of an approval.


(4) An order under paragraph 1 above which provides that an Agency shall be deemed to have given their approval in any circumstances may impose any such conditions, limitations or qualifications as might have been imposed by the Agency under the preceding provisions of this paragraph.

Mr. Jenkin: This paragraph of the schedule seeks to reconcile two different objectives. First, where a consent has been given, the agency may not at any time thereafter restrict the price or the remuneration. Secondly, it must not put it out of its power, for instance, to enforce a price reduction if that is required by the code. We have had two or three bites at this cherry, and we believe that we now have it right. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs moved an amendment on Report in this House which did not


entirely solve the problem. The amendment which I am asking the House to agree to does solve the problem.
The effect of the amendment moved and accepted in another place is to spell out the implications of paragraph 1(5) of the Second Schedule; namely, the attachment of conditions or qualifications to approvals and the limitation of the duration of approvals. As amended, the provision makes clear that the Price Commission will be able to attach sufficient conditions to any approval given to ensure that the price reduction requirements under the code can be fulfilled.
The new paragraph 2(4) deals directly with deemed approvals. We believe that by these amendments we have succeeded in reconciling these conflicting objectives, and I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Mr. Brian Walden: The Chief Secretary is right in saying that there have been several bites at this cherry. To know whether these amendments fulfil the purpose he outlined would require a knowledge of parliamentary draftsmanship which I do not possess.
It is all bogus. The Price Commission will not operate in this way—I see the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) nodding in agreement. The great majority of prices will not be supervised in this way. It is a sham, to enforce wage restraint.
If the Chief Secretary tells us that these amendments set out theoretical guidance for the Price Commission, I accept his word. We will not divide on it, but I am not prepared to allow this to go through with the country thinking that there will be a careful surveillance of prices. There will not be. The more the Opposition study the resources that the Government have made available to make operative their price restraint, the more convinced we are that they are wholly bogus, as the country will see when it assesses the price increases in six months' or a year's time.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I say with great sincerity that the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) is quite wrong. If I needed evidence of that, I would only need to recall the representations which have been made to the Government by the CBI and other

bodies. I was there when their representatives met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. They at least do not regard the provisions relating to price reductions as bogus.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 16, page 27, line 13, leave out "or modify" and insert "any of".

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who has apologised to me for his inability to be present tonight, moved on Report an amendment which seemed to me to be a good one, and I promised to look at it further.
The question is whether an order made under paragraph 2 (2) of the schedule could modify the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) so as to reduce the rights of the subject. It seemed to me that the use of the word "modify" could have that result, and that was not our intention. Therefore, in another place an amendment was moved to take out "or modify" and put in "any of" instead. An order can now only exclude provisions and thus alleviate the burden. It cannot modify a provisions so as to make the burden on the citizen heavier. I think that would be in accordance with the wishes of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 17, page 27, line 16, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert:
(1) The Minister may by order made at any time during a period when Part II of this Act is in force prescribe the degree to which anything made illegal by any order or notice made or given under Part II during that period, or anything otherwise affected by any such provision, is to be valid or invalid either during that period or later.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is another point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) on Report. It relates to the extent to which an order, which is made to affect a period when Part II of the Bill is in operation, could continue in operation after Part II has come to an end.
As the Bill was drafted, it looked as if an order might be made after the end of the period to affect the period when Part II was in operation. That again was not our intention. The amendment makes it clear that the sole purpose of this provision is to make sure that an order made during Part II shall nevertheless continue to affect the period when Part II is in operation even though that period has come to an end.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Gray.]

Orders of the Day — UGANDA

11.43 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I hoped that in the months since General Amin introduced his current policies towards this country we would find some time for a proper, full debate by the whole House or at least by those interested in international affairs. It is not adequate that one should discuss such a subject in an Adjournment debate, but I think that it is better discussed in an Adjournment debate than not at all.
The behaviour of the Uganda régime which I find sufficiently offensive to make me wish the British Government to take counter-action is divided into two parts. There is first the expulsion from Uganda of residents there who were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That action was entirely within the legal rights of the Uganda Government and, leaving aside the manner in which it was done, it is not action to which I wish to direct special criticism, though I regret it.
In so far as blame attaches to anyone for the situation that Britain now faces

as regards the United Kingdom citizens who were in Uganda, it attaches to the Government—it happened to be a Conservative Government—who in the early 1960s proposed to the House that the right to retain United Kingdom citizenship should be conferred in the East African case. It belongs to Parliament, which did not pay sufficient attention and allowed the proposal through without thinking about it. It belongs especially to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who master-minded it. It does not belong to General Amin.
The offensive behaviour which I distinguish from that is the inhuman and inhumane manner in which the expulsion was conducted, the confiscation of goods of United Kingdom citizens and others in Uganda, and the breakdown in the rule of law in Uganda, creating danger not only for the people of Uganda but also for foreigners living there, and manifested by the dragging out of the Chief Justice of Uganda from his own court and his later assassination as an official act of policy.
The offensive behaviour is entirely domestic to the country of Uganda. It is not a matter in which we are entitled to interfere. But that does not mean that we should be indifferent to it in our attitudes, and we are not, as Her Majesty's Government have made very plain. But nor should we sit back and take no action in respect of our practical dealings with Uganda.
As a result of history, there are three areas in which we have close practical dealings with Uganda. They are in aid, trade and Commonwealth membership. The Government take great pride in having announced that the £10 million loan which Uganda would have got but for her present policies has been stopped. That is good. They have also announced that the topping-up of salaries of OSAS personnel in Uganda is to stop when contracts expire. But those actions are nothing like enough, and they were not taken quickly enough to have any effect.
For aid to be justified, there needs to be a relationship between the giving Government and the receiving Government so that the giving Government can feel confident that the receiving Government will administer it efficiently and responsibly. We can have no confidence that


any aid provided to Uganda at present will be used competently or wisely.
In the circumstances it seems to be right that we should cut off immediately all aid to Uganda. We should do it as a sudden action to manifest our displeasure with and distrust of the régime. It is not good enough to wait until present contracts expire. We ought to say to our partially aid-financed personnel in Uganda, "Come out. We are not prepared to go on putting British money into Uganda, no matter how little it may be."
Then one comes to trade. Uganda continues to enjoy preferences in this country as a Commonwealth country. Although preferences will be phased out as part of the terms of our entry into the Community, they still exist at the moment and they are of real benefit to Uganda. It is worth noting that there is a reverse preference. That is not General Amin's fault. It goes back to the Congo Basin treaties, and existed in colonial days. It is worth noting that there does not happen to be a quid pro quo relating to Uganda preferences.
In 1971 the balance of trade between Britain and Uganda was in Uganda's favour. Uganda exported to us about £19·4 million worth of goods and we sent to Uganda about £15·7 million worth of goods. In 1972 the adverse balance had become greatly worse. From Uganda there flowed about £18·8 million worth of goods and to Uganda we sold just under half—namely £9·3 million. The position has become worse and worse month by month as the chaos in Uganda means that it is impossible for our exporters to sell there. In the last six months from Uganda there came £10·3 million worth of goods, and only £2·7 million worth of goods were sent by us to Uganda. That compares with the equivalent six months the previous year when Uganda sent £10·4 million worth to us and we sent £8·1 million to them.
The figures show that Uganda is enjoying a favourable trade relationship with us. It is true to say that in respect of some of Uganda's principal commodities the preference does not apply. Nevertheless, preference applies to a lot of goods, and it constitutes an encouragement to Uganda's favourable balance of trade with Britain rather than a dis-

couragement. It seems wrong to allow that situation to continue when Uganda's behaviour towards us is considered.
I have intervened several times in the House to say that it seems clear that we should take the initiative to the other Commonwealth Governments—and they would have to agree—and advise them that Uganda should be suspended from Commonwealth membership because of its behaviour. I stress "suspension" and not "expulsion". It can be argued that there is no such thing as suspension from the Commonwealth and that it has never happened before. But nothing has ever happened in the Commonwealth which has ever happened before. It lives on innovation, and that would be a sensible innovation to introduce. It was thought impossible to have a republic in the Commonwealth until suddenly it was done without any difficulty. I suggest that there would be no difficulty in introducing the concept of suspension from Commonwealth membership as opposed to expulsion if Commonwealth Governments wished to do so, which is a big "if".
The second possible technical objection, which has been put forward in the House by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, is that it is not for Britain to take the initiative. On one occasion at least the right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was impossible for Britain to take the initiative, and procedurally wrong for us to do so.
There is nothing impossible about it. It is obvious that all that Britain has to do is to send messages to the other Commonwealth Governments, with the exception of Uganda, suggesting that it would be appropriate for Uganda to be suspended from membership, and to achieve that before the Ottawa conference in August of this year. It may or may not be wise in the opinion of the Government, it may or may not result in agreement with the Commonwealth Governments, but it is a possible initiative for the British Government to take. If the British Government cannot take it, who can? The Commonwealth Secretariat cannot take the initiative on an important policy matter such as this.
There is one specific matter on which I should like an answer either tonight or later. This relates to the question whether


there has been any consultation with other Commonwealth Governments on this point. I have now asked this question twice in the House and have been fobbed off. I recognise that confidential negotiations with Commonwealth Governments are normally hidden from the eyes of Parliament. But I wish to know whether there has been any discussion between Commonwealth Governments—and I use the word "discussion" in the widest sense—on whether this is a desirable and possible thing to do.
The third technical objection that might be raised—the Foreign Secretary has raised it in the past—is that this is something that should come up only at Ottawa when everybody is sitting round the table —including Amin, if he dares leave his country. That is the time, it is hinted, to discuss whether Amin should be at the table. Has anyone ever heard of such a daft idea? If we do not want to sit at the same table with him, let us do something about it before we sit at the same table. Let us not wait until we all get round the table at Ottawa.
To come to the substance of the question of the suspension of Uganda from the Commonwealth, the considerations are as follows. The Commonwealth in the last 30 years has changed from being a grouping in which it was conceived that the value lay in the similarity of outlook of its members to one in which it is thought—rightly—that the value lies in the dissimilarity of its members' outlooks, politics, geographical location, and so on. Therefore, we must be extremely tolerant of the different policies which the different Commonwealth Governments will wish to pursue. But there has to be a limit to the elasticity that we are prepared to allow the Commonwealth relationship to show. If the relationship is so elastic that it can take in Britain at one extreme—to think of one law-abiding country—and at the other extreme a country whose chief justice can be dragged from court and assassinated I do not regard that association as one having any kind of value. There must be a limit to the tolerance which such an institution can exercise.
It is possible that it is being argued in the Foreign Office that the presence of Amin within the Commonwealth shows how useless is the relationship of the

Commonwealth, and that may be the secret policy of the Foreign Office. But if Amin is allowed to stay within the Commonwealth the institution has lost its value. If we are to take Amin back, we might as well take South Africa back. We might as well have Smith at the table, if we are to have Amin there. We might as well invite President Nyerere to bring in representatives of the thug government in Zanzibar if we are to have Amin there.
I accept that the position of Uganda's relationship with the Commonwealth is one which Britain alone cannot take. It is a decision that rests with all Commonwealth members other than Uganda. I also accept that the chances of getting the other Commonwealth members to agree that it would be a good idea to suspend Uganda are small to the point of non-existence, but the other members must choose. If they want Amin in the Commonwealth that is all right—but if they do, then they do not want us. If they prefer to have that régime represented at Ottawa, let them choose to have that régime there. We shall not leave the Commonwealth, we shall be around when Amin has gone, but if they want Amin to be present we can say that we see no point in attending. If it came to that, I would prefer the Commonwealth to disappear and go under on the basis of such a principle involving an initiative by Britain, rather than that Amin should linger on like the smile on the face of the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland because we were not prepared to draw the line.
The repercussions of our policy towards Uganda go wide outside that country. If nations think, as they do, that Britain will put up with any sort of treatment of its nationals and interests abroad, they will impose upon us whatever treatment suits their interests. It is because it has become accepted over the years that Britain rather turns the other cheek that we have to put up with Franco's behaviour in Gibraltar and Iceland's in the Icelandic fisheries matter. It matters what the world thinks that Britain will do when faced with a challenge to her interests such as Amin has put forward.
This question also raises the matter of the quality of Britain's diplomacy, of which I have no high opinion. Diplomacy


is apparently to get what one wants, preferably without paying for it, and to stop others from doing what they like if it is not in one's interests that they should do it. Looking at the Uganda situation, the world can have no faith that Britain is able to look after herself.
There has been reference in the House to compensation for United Kingdom nationals in Uganda. The Foreign Secretary, on 28th February, told us that the Government were trying to get compensation from these people. When I put it to him that it was important to make clear to the Uganda Government what consequences would follow from us if compensation was not forthcoming, he said that that was a point to which we would come if they refused compensation and we would see what, if anything, we needed to do to Uganda as a result of that decision.
I do not know where the Foreign Office learned its diplomacy, but it should take a lesson from the trade union movement if that is how it thinks one gets what one wants. When negotiating with people one tells them what awful consequences will follow if they do not agree while the negotiations are going on. There is no point in doing it afterwards. It is too late then.
I am not inviting the Government to use bluff or to make idle threats. It is important to have some sanctions to apply. We should have sharpened our knives and primed our weapons and made it clear to Uganda what we would do if it refused compensation.
An announcement has been made that the proposed £10 million loan will not now be made, that the process of topping up will cease, and that the strength of our arm is downgraded to the level of an acting high commission.
On 23rd October the Foreign Secretary said that when the Asians were out of Uganda it would be his intention to review our general policy towards Uganda to see what ought to be done. As a result, on 30th November he announced those three proposals: that we would not go on to make the £10 million loan, that we would not top up salaries of technical assistance staff and that we would not appoint a high commissioner. That was the result of this magnificent

review of our general policy towards Uganda.
I will outline what I should like to see happen: first, that any aid still flowing should be stopped immediately; secondly, that preference should be terminated immediately—that may require legislation, but it can be done quickly— and, thirdly, that we should be in active consultation with other Governments to organise international pressure upon Uganda. Then we should get our people out of Uganda, because it is the presence of United Kingdom citizens there which gives Amin the continuing weapon to put the screws on this country.
It is tempting, perhaps, in international affairs sometimes to turn the other cheek, but it is not only a matter of dignity, although dignity is a pretty good guide when it comes to diplomacy.
It is also because we are defending the interests of people in this country, British people abroad, and so on, that we have to ensure that actions such as Uganda has perpetrated are not allowed to pass without a penalty. Our motto should be nemo me impune lacessit.
The Minister will no doubt ask why we should punish the people of Uganda for the offences of the Government. There is no need to punish the people of Uganda—quite the reverse. If we were to take the kind of action which I have indicated it would be seen by the opponents of Amin within Uganda as a statement of our support and understanding of their very genuine grievances against the present régime.

12.6 a.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Balniel): The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) has rendered a real service to the House in securing this debate, but he will appreciate that only a brief moment remains for me to reply to it. To some extent the hon. Gentleman has answered to his own satisfaction the points that he wished to put forward, and I have taken careful note of what he said.
Britain's policy in Uganda continues to be that which was announced to the House on 30th November and 19th December by my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman said, Her Majesty's Government have cancelled the proposed £10 million loan agreement. Supplementation for technical assistance personnel will not continue beyond the course of an officer's current contract, and we shall do our best to minimise the financial hardship to any officer who chooses to leave Uganda early.
In the wider context to which the hon. Gentleman was referring we have brought the attention of the United Nations on more than one occasion to the inhumanity of President Amin's precipitate expulsion of the Asians. This was an act of blatant racialism and discrimination in violation of the principles laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also in violation of the recognised standards of international behaviour.
We have made clear to President Amin that we expect full compensation to be paid to the Asians for their businesses and the properties left behind in Uganda. We have made known our strong opposition to the arbitrary and discriminatory manner of his expropriation of British businesses in Uganda, and for these also we expect full compensation to be paid as provided by law.
Events in Uganda have shown up the shortcomings of the protection which is accorded by international law to people who are not citizens of the country in which they live. We have taken the initiative in the United Nations Human Rights Commission by proposing that consideration should be given to this problem so as to prevent, if possible, any repetition elsewhere of the events in Uganda.
I fully accept the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which was constructive, firm and advocated robust policies, but I think he will recognise that we must be careful to distinguish, on the one hand, acts which are designed to safeguard essential interests and to improve the situation from, on the other hand, acts which are purely retaliatory or have a kind of symbolic effect.
The hon Gentleman mentioned the question of trade. Uganda would have very little difficulty in selling elsewhere

the coffee and probably the tea which are her main exports to this country. The first people to suffer would be consumers in this country, but I shall look carefully into the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in this regard.
The hon. Gentleman suggested, as others have, that Her Majesty's Government should take further measures, and he referred in particular to the possibility of Uganda's suspension from the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained the position on this on 28th February. Certainly, some of Uganda's recent acts towards foreign communities in Uganda, and in particular towards the Asians and the British, are outrageous by normal standards of civilised behaviour and incompatible both with the behaviour expected within the Commonwealth partnership and with the ideals of the United Nations Charter.
There are clearly a number of possible courses of action which may be open to us. But the proper place to discuss Uganda's relations with the Commonwealth would be at the Prime Minister's meeting in August. The hon. Member asked whether there had been discussions. It is not for me to disclose confidential discussions, but it is our view that the suspension of a member from the Commonwealth is of such importance that it is a matter for Heads of Commonwealth Governments. It is our view that Ottawa is the best place for this discussion to take place.
Any actions which the Government might take unilaterally, despite the emotions involved, we must consider with great care. There is a British community in Uganda of over 2,000 persons whose interests must remain uppermost in our minds. The Ugandan authorities have been reminded of their responsibility for the protection of the British community on several recent occasions and they have accepted full responsibility for the protection of the lives and property of all foreign nationals.
Her Majesty's Government have noted with surprise the scarcely veiled threat to this community by a military spokesman on 18th March. The spokesman referred to articles appearing in the British Sunday Press as "hostile British propaganda" and said that if this continued British


personnel still in Uganda would be in a difficult situation. He also referred to the possibility, if the Press campaign continued, of further takeovers of British companies still operating in Uganda and of not paying compensation for companies already taken over.
Our acting High Commissioner has already made to the appropriate Ugandan authorities the points that the British Government are not responsible for articles appearing in the British Press and that if the Uganda Government deported British journalists such as Philip Short the British Press would in future have no option but to fall back on stories by persons who had either never been there or had not been recently.

Mr. George Cunningham: I bet that has got him worried.

Lord Balniel: As to the question of compensation for the United Kingdom passport holders and the British subjects whose businesses and property have been taken over, we have invited our nationals to place on record with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a statement of their property left behind in Uganda and we

continue to press for talks with the Ugandan Government. At this stage it may be appropriate, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman said, to point out that our differences are with the Government of President Amin rather than with the Ugandan people as a whole, the vast majority of whom still remain friendly to us.
In these circumstances we must consider very carefully before we take any purely recriminatory measures. It would not be in our interests to repeat the inhumane acts of the Ugandan Government, for instance, if we were to order Ugandans out of this country or to interrupt educational and training courses which have already been arranged. Instead we must look for positive openings—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.